If all cyclists waited at the red light...

magicbastarder · 09-08-2018 2:18pm

site_owner wrote: »

i thought this forum advocated queueing on the left in single file

This forum is not a hive mind though.

Wishbone Ash · 09-08-2018 2:31pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The thing about ignoring the law and instead adopting your own interpretation of what's "dangerous" and what's "safe", is that it's entirely subjective.....

Yup - many lads used to think they were perfectly safe driving home after 6 or 7 pints of porter.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I've been like Marcel Marceau on my bike at the head of the queue of traffic, trying to find some kind of arm gestures that says: "Please come closer; I can't trigger the induction coil to change the lights"

I do the same at the lights on my street and talk to the motorists if I can. The amount that are not aware of induction loops is staggering.

doozerie · 09-08-2018 2:52pm

C3PO wrote: »

It's a regular occurrence that cars don't pull up to the line and the traffic can sit there until somebody local gets out of their car and walks down the line of traffic to tell the 1st car to pull up a bit!!

At the Yellow House junction I mentioned earlier I've been at the head of the queue in the right-turning lane in the past. Some seemingly considerate drivers would stay well back from my bike but were stopped short of the sensor as a result.

In my early "surely no bastard would install a sensor that can't triggered by a bicycle, for fcuk sake!" naivety days, I'd do a curious dance of rolling my bike back and forth over the sensor trying to find "the spot". Much like a drunk fella searching for a clitoris, I imagine.

When that failed I'd roll the bike into the yellow box in the middle of the junction (while the light was green for oncoming traffic and traffic going straight on), and turn around to motion to the motorist at the head of the queue to roll forward into the sensor. Their facial expression would generally change from amusement, to impatience, to annoyance ("Don't you tell me what to do, etc."), probably much like the facial expressions of the female partner of that drunk fella.

The lights would change to red, and I'd be left stranded there in the middle of the junction, smack in the path of the cars queued on the road to my right who now have a green light. More annoyance, and I'd have to break the red light to make my right turn and get out of their way, cue some "fcuking cyclists, breaking red lights!" reactions (reasonably enough, in fairness).

C3PO · 09-08-2018 2:53pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The thing about ignoring the law and instead adopting your own interpretation of what's "dangerous" and what's "safe", is that it's entirely subjective.

Pretty much everyone who breaks road traffic law does so because they think its safe to do so. Nobody intentionally does something they think is dangerous.

But in my opinion there are many occasions where breaking a red light is no more "dangerous" and very often a lot safer than turning right at a Stop sign or cycling through a crossroads on a rural road! The fact that the light is red does not make the manoeuvre inherently dangerous!

Kav0777 · 09-08-2018 3:02pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

This forum is not a hive mind though.

"We are all individuals..."

"I'm not"

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 3:07pm

These threads definitely need some kind of reference to philosophy and law. I remember an episode of The Philosopher's Arms on BBC Radio 4 that dealt with whether we should always obey the law, but I can't remember much about it now. Not sure half an hour of a light-hearted radio show is a sufficient introduction to the subject.

Now I think about it, there were two other laws I didn't bother with, and unlike the footpath cycling law, it wasn't just very occasional that I disregarded the laws: the bicycle bell law, and the mandatory cycle track one. In the latter case, I very much was making up my own mind that not only was it safe for me to use the road instead, that it was at least as safe or safer than using the cycle track.

buffalo · 09-08-2018 3:58pm

C3PO wrote: »

But in my opinion there are many occasions where breaking a red light is no more "dangerous" and very often a lot safer than turning right at a Stop sign or cycling through a crossroads on a rural road! The fact that the light is red does not make the manoeuvre inherently dangerous!

Aye, but everyone draws the line slightly differently. Some politicians would have you believe that you're a better driver after a couple of pints. All those people who park on double-yellows or along continuous white lines because they'll only be there for five minutes, sure what's the danger? I've had people swear blind that they can use their phone safely while driving, sure who I am to judge?

We picked a set of rules to keep everyone safe and the roads system working for all. Lobby for changes all you want, but in the meantime follow the rules. Being inconvenienced does not allow for exceptions, though I'd argue being in danger does.

Chips Lovell · 09-08-2018 4:03pm

C3PO wrote: »

But in my opinion...

That's exactly my point. Everyone has an opinion, and despite the fact that not two opinions are exactly the same, everyone sure that their opinion is the right one.

Lambay island · 09-08-2018 4:03pm

doozerie wrote: »

They are usually only visible as a patched rectangle on the road at a junction. They aren't triggered by weight though, they detect metal. On a bike you sometimes have to pass over a specific part of them to trigger them, and even then there are some that a bike doesn't trigger at all.

There are several on my commute that only trigger if you roll over a very narrow/specific part of them, and a couple that don't seem to ever trigger when I am on the bike (but trigger every time when I am driving). The right (southbound) turn at Yellow House pub in Rathfarnham is one of the latter.

yes this was one I was actually referring to and there are two more further off that willbrook road towards(one from whitechurch road). I never realised it was a specific spot you had to go over, I did notice it occasionally does go green for me but I had put it down to a big breakfast and not having the morning toilet visit yet

. Everyday is a school day

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 4:05pm

But what about when cycle tracks were mandatory to use. Did everyone here use them? Or does everyone have a bell on their bike? I mean, if you are doing something that has a high likelihood of killing or seriously injuring people, it's different from not having a legally mandated device for going "ping".

(This is just a general point. People shouldn't break red lights, which is more the subject of this thread.)

RayCun · 09-08-2018 4:13pm

why not have a bell on your bike?

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 4:13pm

Incidentally, this is the radio show that was about obeying the law:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01m5jkl

I might have a listen now and see if I can find a philosophical reason to justify myself.

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 4:14pm

RayCun wrote: »

why not have a bell on your bike?

I now have a bell on all three of my bikes. I just couldn't be bothered before, and no-one was enforcing it, and it isn't all that important.

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 4:18pm

RayCun wrote: »

why not have a bell on your bike?

The UK law, apparently, used to be that you had to ring the bell continuously when you were cycling. At least, so they said on The Unbelievable Truth on BBC Radio 4.

(I don't get all my information from British light entertainment shows, honestly.)

NUTLEY BOY · 09-08-2018 4:38pm

Some go too far !

I was cycling up the slip road towards UCD from Donnybrook. The marked cycle lane is actually covered by the traffic lights i.e the traffic lights are to your left as you cycle.

I stopped on red. About three other cyclists came from behind and cruised straight ahead. The next guy came galloping through - intending to go straight ahead - and zipped diagonally across the junction to go around the tail end of about 20 students coming from UCD towards the Montrose Hotel and who were crossing legitimately.

The apprehension of being rear ended by a fellow cyclist makes me feel some days like Fr. Ted praying that God will please turn the traffic light green

OleRodrigo · 09-08-2018 4:39pm

Saw (and heard) some guy with cow bells dangling from his top tube on Capel St bridge the other morning.

Thought I was hearing things.

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 4:40pm

Yeah, if there's no passing room to my right (cargo bike is quite wide), I sometimes have to half-turn round as I'm braking and say "I'm stopping" so I don't get rear-ended.

doozerie · 09-08-2018 4:45pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

But what about when cycle tracks were mandatory to use. Did everyone here use them? Or does everyone have a bell on their bike? I mean, if you are doing something that has a high likelihood of killing or seriously injuring people, it's different from not having a legally mandated device for going "ping".

(This is just a general point. People shouldn't break red lights, which is more the subject of this thread.)

It's a fair point, essentially we all pick and choose the laws that we consider important to one extent or another. And it could be argued that the decision to, say, not have a bell on your bike, is the thin end of a wedge that leads to people chipping away at their sense of responsibility to the point that they choose to ignore laws that many people would consider far more serious.

Personally, my angle on that is to distinguish between laws that (in my opinion) pose dangers to me and others, and those that don't. The line between the two is subjective but for me having a bell offers no real benefits as my voice is bother faster to deploy, louder, and requires no movement of my hands away from my brakes.

In the case of bike lanes, I generally use them when they are a painted lane as part of the road (except for those that bring me up the inside of left-turning traffic when I'm going straight on e.g. Lombard Street East), but I generally don't use those shared with footpaths and instead opt to remain on the road where I am part of traffic and where other traffic should be watching for my presence as much as they'd watch for any traffic.

More generally, I just try to avoid putting myself in situations where my presence is likely to be unexpected. The risks of things going wrong increase dramatically the more you take other road users by surprise by behaving in an unpredictable way. For that reason, I opt not to break red lights, ride on the footpath, etc.

The rules of the road are far from perfect, but they are at least a stab at defining a reasonable set of common rules for our behaviour on the roads, that if followed should reduce the number of those scenarios where people are taken by surprise. I don't want to be the equivalent of that tree that "just appeared in front of my car, yer honour!", or the cyclist that "appeared out of nowhere and hit me, garda!", etc.

There is obviously no way to absolutely guarantee your own safety (or absolutely eliminate your danger to others) on the roads, but there certainly are many behaviours that can increase the risk for everyone.

tomasrojo · 09-08-2018 5:08pm

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Saw (and heard) some guy with cow bells dangling from his top tube on Capel St bridge the other morning.

Gene Frenkle at a loose end when not on tour.

cdaly_ · 09-08-2018 6:22pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Guess that was partly the rationale of these things (though not the damage to cars):

I don't think they made much difference, but I don't think anyone rigorously checked their efficacy.

I suspect that they would give the impression that there was a car ahead with only one rear light working and so would prompt a wider overtake...

cdaly_ · 09-08-2018 6:27pm

buffalo wrote: »

Being inconvenienced does not allow for exceptions, though I'd argue being in danger does.

tomasrojo wrote: »

But what about when cycle tracks were mandatory to use. Did everyone here use them?

No. Using buffalo's point above in justification but in reality just avoiding the inconvenience.

OTOH, red light means stop.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 09-08-2018 8:14pm

What's the point of a cyclist waiting at a red light when he/she can see there's nothing coming?

RayCun · 09-08-2018 9:36pm

xsyojhgt43f8z5 wrote: »

What's the point of a cyclist waiting at a red light when he/she can see there's nothing coming?

What's the point of a driver stopping at a red light when they can see there's nothing coming?

Lumen · 09-08-2018 9:39pm

RayCun wrote: »

What's the point of a driver stopping at a red light when they can see there's nothing coming?

Aside from the law, cars have forward facing blind spots. Bicycles don't.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 09-08-2018 9:53pm

The reason why cyclists ignore red lights is because the law is ridiculous. Why should you have to remain at a red light if it is obvious there is nothing coming?

buffalo · 09-08-2018 10:18pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

But what about when cycle tracks were mandatory to use.

If a bike lane was safe, I'd use it. If there was a danger of being taken out by a pedestrian or being dropped onto the road at a right angle, to me that's reason enough not to use it.

Arguably I could slow right down when using the path or re-joining the road, and therefore it's only an inconvenience, but it's getting into semantics then.

I have a bell on all my bikes, bar those adapted for racing. I got a new bike about two weeks ago, and I'm rather annoyed the bars are too wide for any of my bells, so I am currently a lawless rogue - apologies.

Grassey · 09-08-2018 10:27pm

xsyojhgt43f8z5 wrote:

The reason why cyclists ignore red lights is because the law is ridiculous. Why should you have to remain at a red light if it is obvious there is nothing coming?

Why should drivers stop on orange when at least 4 cars can squeeze through before the sequence changes to green for cross traffic?

If the law makes no sense campaign to change it, or put up with it.

I think all road users should be allowed to turn left when clear to do so. Or roll through pedestrian lights if nobody around following a complete stop. Would I trust any Irish road user to follow those scenarios or new laws safely. Hell. No.

Wishbone Ash · 09-08-2018 11:20pm

Grassey wrote: »

Why should drivers stop on orange....

AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER

Apologies for being pedantic but that's one of my pet hates!

tomasrojo · 10-08-2018 12:09am

tomasrojo wrote: »

The UK law, apparently, used to be that you had to ring the bell continuously when you were cycling. At least, so they said on The Unbelievable Truth on BBC Radio 4.

(I don't get all my information from British light entertainment shows, honestly.)

Under a law between 1888 and 1930 cyclists in Britain were ordered to ring their bells constantly in order to warn pedestrians where you were.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/radio/the_unbelievable_truth/episodes/6/6/

(I looked it up in case I'd imagined it.)

doozerie · 10-08-2018 12:25am

xsyojhgt43f8z5 wrote: »

The reason why cyclists ignore red lights is because the law is ridiculous. Why should you have to remain at a red light if it is obvious there is nothing coming?

Of course. I, for one, take this mindset to the car with me. Empowered as I am by being an infallible cyclist the rest of the time (as a cyclist I can always see when someone is coming, obvs.), I scoff at red lights when driving too. And I never see anyone coming, especially when I am in a hurry I see no-one at all, it's a very curious thing.

I'd argue that everyone else should just ignore red lights too but while I'm infallible (proven above, by my saying it, like) I just don't trust the rest of ye.

Thinkingaboutit · 10-08-2018 8:16am

Stopping at lights is a good idea, even with the risk of being rear ended by a bicycle (some woman cyclist once at lights, lwr Kimmage Rd-Sundrive Rd junction, she didn't have brakes, so I directed her urgently to Wolf Cycles). A person will miss motorised metal boxes gunning it to get through a junction, or some other hazard. There are some places where stopping at lights can mean contending with HGVs and others in a hurry on roads with very little spaces, so perhaps some might see the argument there for a California Stop / outpacing the lights policy at some spots with a clear view of the junction.

seamus · 10-08-2018 8:37am

RayCun wrote: »

why not have a bell on your bike?

Serious answer on this from me is that

1. I don't have any space left on my bars - put 38cm bars on the commuter, so when I have a light on it, I have just about enough space for my hands.

2. I don't see the point. But that's my personal style than anything. If I beep the horn when driving more than once a year, that would be exceptional. I can't recall any time when a bell would have been of use.

Eamonnator · 10-08-2018 8:42am

seamus wrote: »

Serious answer on this from me is that

1. I don't have any space left on my bars - put 38cm bars on the commuter, so when I have a light on it, I have just about enough space for my hands.

2. I don't see the point. But that's my personal style than anything. If I beep the horn when driving more than once a year, that would be exceptional. I can't recall any time when a bell would have been of use.

Why bother with the horn on the car so?
The law may be an ass, but it is the law.

RayCun · 10-08-2018 8:45am

seamus wrote: »

2. I don't see the point. But that's my personal style than anything. If I beep the horn when driving more than once a year, that would be exceptional. I can't recall any time when a bell would have been of use.

I rarely use either horn or bell, but I have found the bell useful sometimes on shared paths - one side of the path is for bikes, the other side for pedestrians, and sometimes people spill over. People recognise the sound of a bike bell and move automatically, while if I say "excuse me" or something like that, they turn around to look, then move.

buffalo · 10-08-2018 8:45am

seamus wrote: »

Serious answer on this from me is that

1. I don't have any space left on my bars - put 38cm bars on the commuter, so when I have a light on it, I have just about enough space for my hands.

2. I don't see the point. But that's my personal style than anything. If I beep the horn when driving more than once a year, that would be exceptional. I can't recall any time when a bell would have been of use.

Stick it under your saddle so. :pac:

More seriously, a bike bell shouldn't be used in the same manner as a car horn, so the comparison isn't really relevant.

seamus · 10-08-2018 8:50am

^^
I do get all of that. Just pointing out why I haven't bothered my hole going to get one. I've never bought a bike with a bell on it, and never felt any inclination to fit one; never felt like I was missing anything.

Maybe I'll stick my daughter's pink princess one on to see how I feel about it and whether I actually do use it...

silverharp · 10-08-2018 8:56am

I saw a funny one this morning along the canal , all the lights were red at the junction for pedestrians to cross, one cyclist was inching his way across the lights and a second one was crossing his path at speed and had to hit the breaks. it just looked odd as neither one was in the right and how they didn't spot each other earlier was beyond me

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 10-08-2018 9:24am

Why can't lights be computerised and allow you to drive/ cycle on with care when no traffic is coming?

tomasrojo · 10-08-2018 9:41am

RayCun wrote: »

I rarely use either horn or bell, but I have found the bell useful sometimes on shared paths - one side of the path is for bikes, the other side for pedestrians, and sometimes people spill over. People recognise the sound of a bike bell and move automatically, while if I say "excuse me" or something like that, they turn around to look, then move.

They're handy for going around blind corners on narrow cycle facilities too. Or coming out of alleyways and driveways. I don't think they're vital, but they are somewhat useful when you're around pedestrians. And they can actually be heard in cars.

I have to say though that while having one might be the law, it's never enforced. So if they're not that important (and they're not) and no-one ever enforces the law, I don't see how the sentiment "well, they're the law and that's that. You should just get one" applies. What difference will it make if you don't? You'll never be made to get one, or face any punishment for not having one.

jon1981 · 10-08-2018 9:42am

xsyojhgt43f8z5 wrote: »

Why can't lights be computerised and allow you to drive/ cycle on with care when no traffic is coming?

They can but it's expensive. Given the state of alot of the roads and lack of cycle lanes or quality lanes I don't think computerised traffic lights will be top of the priority list.

magicbastarder · 10-08-2018 9:49am

Someone needs to invent a bell which looks good. Maybe they have, but I don't think I've seen one. I guess they have to be round to ring clearly, no aero shapes possible.

jon1981 · 10-08-2018 9:51am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Someone needs to invent a bell which looks good. Maybe they have, but I don't think I've seen one. I guess they have to be round to ring clearly, no aero shapes possible.

They have invented one => expensive wheels with really loud freehubs

P_1 · 10-08-2018 10:04am

Or people can make an annoying bring bring noise like the chap who decided we clearly weren't going fast enough for his liking on the N11 cycle track yesterday.

Twats like that get on my nerves. If you want to go fast use the bloody bus lane

cdaly_ · 10-08-2018 10:07am

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER

No but you can drive through on flashing amber if the way is clear.

Isn't that what you meant?...

tomasrojo · 10-08-2018 10:10am

I guess a lot of this comes down to the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. (Well, the bell business maybe is more of a dead-letter law, more or less, though it falls a bit short of that, as it's quite possible to see it being revivified with fines, Australian-style.) Quite a lot has been written about spirit vs. letter for hundreds of years, though the extremes are easy enough for people to agree on most of the time (murdering people is a hard one to get away with in countries that aren't falling apart).

A law was written (I presume) to protect pedestrians on footpaths from harm from cyclists. It's pretty clear that people are not allowed to cycle on footpaths, and we have punishments for people who break that law. But we still allow small children to cycle on footpaths, because they don't have the mass, or usually, the speed to cause that much harm, and we judge that they aren't sufficiently mature to use the road. However, we still are allowing people, mostly parents in this case, to make judgement calls about breaking the law. In fact, if you didn't break the law and made your four-year-old cycle on a busy road rather than the empty footpath beside it, people would judge you quite harshly.

So I think people would overwhelmingly agree that the parent making the child use the busy road was being bizarrely legalistic.

I suppose the point I'm making is that we don't really expect people to follow the letter of the law blindly, we mostly hope that they'll follow the spirit of the law. So while most people here agree that breaking reds isn't justifiable, saying that it's the law and you must follow it isn't really how citizens interact with the law generally.

(People's relationship with doing 50km/h in a 30km/h zone is an interesting case too.)

Grassey · 10-08-2018 10:12am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Someone needs to invent a bell which looks good. Maybe they have, but I don't think I've seen one. I guess they have to be round to ring clearly, no aero shapes possible.

Will this do? The Knog Oi Bell

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTknbgs4TQ50T9TJ5tl47sDLpTL75xZoN6rfY4t_AysQPutMiuI

tomasrojo · 10-08-2018 10:14am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Someone needs to invent a bell which looks good. Maybe they have, but I don't think I've seen one. I guess they have to be round to ring clearly, no aero shapes possible.

Some people like the Knog Oi one, but it's not very loud according to reviews.
?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sweetpetes.com%2Fmerchant%2F2194%2Fimages%2Flarge%2Fbrass_oi_on_bike.jpg&f=1

?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sweetpetes.com%2Fmerchant%2F2194%2Fimages%2Flarge%2Fbrass_oi_on_bike.jpg&f=1

EDIT: Beaten to the punch

seamus · 10-08-2018 10:18am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Someone needs to invent a bell which looks good. Maybe they have, but I don't think I've seen one. I guess they have to be round to ring clearly, no aero shapes possible.

https://hidemybell.cc/en/theproduct/
Clever, out-front Garmin mount with a bell on the underside. Not sure whether it's actually useful though or just satisfies the legal requirement without compromising the look of the bike - seems like a lot of effort is require to ring it.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/knog-oi-classic-bell/rp-prod159696?gs=1&sku=sku586897
This is nice, but complaints appear to be that it's not very loud. Again, satisfies the legal bit, may not be at all fit for purpose.

tomasrojo · 10-08-2018 10:32am

Very quiet or hard-to-access bells definitely are more a letter-of-the-law than spirit-of-the-law thing.

Rechuchote · 10-08-2018 11:43am

magicbastarder wrote: »

Someone needs to invent a bell which looks good. Maybe they have, but I don't think I've seen one. I guess they have to be round to ring clearly, no aero shapes possible.

Only bell I've found that rings loudly like the old-fashioned ones on Queen's I Want to Ride My Bicycle was one I got in a bike shop in France. Most of the ones you can buy here or in Britain are aluminium and have a dull sound that disappears into traffic noise.

What's the point of having a bell that's beautiful but inaudible?

If all cyclists waited at the red light...

Comments