dangerous drivers

Ghost Rider

Traffic lights are there to address two problems: road accidents and traffic congestion. Both problems are caused, for the most part, by motorised vehicles, not bikes. To put it another way, the risks to which a motorist puts other road users by "crashing" a red light are considerably higher than a cyclist doing the same thing. That is why the fact that the same law applies to motorists and cyclists strikes so many cyclists as ridiculous.

At worst, a cyclist might put a pedestrian or himself at risk by breaking a red light. For that reason, the sensible attitude for law enforcement agencies would be to turn a blind eye to cyclists breaking red lights, except in cases where they have put a pedestrian or themselves at risk. Thankfully, that is how the Gardai usually act.

Radio Mad. wrote:

And why wouldn't drivers be incensed, especially if they have a green light and, as quite often happens, a cyclist crosses their path after breaking a red light? It's downright dangerous and very, very stupid. Traffic lights are there for the safety of all road users, including cyclists. I really don't see why some people think they're above the law. Anybody crashing a red light deserves to be prosecuted. If gardai were more vigilant and stiffer fines were handed down you can be guaranteed it wouldn't be such a problem.

blorg

Except a cyclist crashing a red light can pass the path of a car who has a green. I see this often enough. The car may have to swerve, causing an accident.

Personally I generally stop, _always_ if I would be crossing a road, although I do admit I often make a left turn on a red after checking that it is safe to do so.

Membrane

blorg wrote:

Except a cyclist crashing a red light can pass the path of a car who has a green. I see this often enough. The car may have to swerve, causing an accident.

What matters is does this actually happen in enough cases to warrant treating breaking of a light by cyclists as equally serious to motorised vehicles breaking lights. It doesn't, if it did Gardai would not turn a blind eye.

Hermy

The law is not something you can choose to ignore just because you cycle a bicycle. If we all obeyed the rules of the road the world would be a better place.

BeerNut

Ghost Rider wrote:

the sensible attitude for law enforcement agencies would be to turn a blind eye to cyclists breaking red lights, except in cases where they have put a pedestrian or themselves at risk.

Which would give the cyclist a de facto legal right to decide whether a particular instance of light-breaking is dangerous or not. That's a bit like giving a motorist a de facto legal right to decide how much alcohol they can have before their driving becomes dangerous. Road traffic law is the way it is for a reason, and cherry-picking it should not be tolerated. If it looks like the Gardaí are turning a blind eye you're just getting lucky.

Radio Mad.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Traffic lights are there to address two problems: road accidents and traffic congestion. Both problems are caused, for the most part, by motorised vehicles, not bikes. To put it another way, the risks to which a motorist puts other road users by "crashing" a red light are considerably higher than a cyclist doing the same thing. That is why the fact that the same law applies to motorists and cyclists strikes so many cyclists as ridiculous.

At worst, a cyclist might put a pedestrian or himself at risk by breaking a red light. For that reason, the sensible attitude for law enforcement agencies would be to turn a blind eye to cyclists breaking red lights, except in cases where they have put a pedestrian or themselves at risk. Thankfully, that is how the Gardai usually act.

With the greatest of respect, I think you're talking rubbish. Cyclists breaking lights put themselves at risk of being hit by whatever is coming the other way, be that another cyclist or a motorised vehicle. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

I've no doubt that there are cyclists who obey the Law. However, it's plain to see that far too many don't. If a motorist was caught breaking the law they'd, quite rightly, be slapped with a few penalty points. Why should there be one law for motorists and another for cyclists?

Morgan

Ghost Rider wrote:

...a cyclist might put a pedestrian or himself at risk by breaking a red light.

Radio Mad. wrote:

Cyclists breaking lights put themselves at risk of being hit by whatever is coming the other way, be that another cyclist or a motorised vehicle. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Uh, that's what he said.

Anyway, that's why it's important to make sure nothing's coming before you break the lights.

Ghost Rider

Radio Mad. wrote:

Cyclists breaking lights put themselves at risk of being hit by whatever is coming the other way, be that another cyclist or a motorised vehicle.

I made that very point. Re-read the post.

Radio Mad. wrote:

If a motorist was caught breaking the law they'd, quite rightly, be slapped with a few penalty points. Why should there be one law for motorists and another for cyclists?

Because cyclists don't pose the same risks to other road users as motorists. Not even close. How many serious accidents to other road users are caused by cyclists each year? Bugger all, is the answer. How much congestion is caused by cyclists? Bugger all. Yet the law purports to regulate both groups of road users in precisely the same way.

True, it might be hard to imagine how separate laws could be implemented for cyclists and for motorists, but the difference between the two groups of road users can be registered on the level of law enforcement. And, as I said, that is effectively what happens. If it didn't, cyclists would constantly be getting arrested, and wasting a lot of police time in the process.

Ghost Rider

BeerNut wrote:

Which would give the cyclist a de facto legal right to decide whether a particular instance of light-breaking is dangerous or not. That's a bit like giving a motorist a de facto legal right to decide how much alcohol they can have before their driving becomes dangerous.

Not at all. And I don't for a second believe you think the risks posed to other road users by cyclists who break red lights are comparable to those posed by motorists who drink and drive.

BeerNut wrote:

Road traffic law is the way it is for a reason, and cherry-picking it should not be tolerated. If it looks like the Gardaí are turning a blind eye you're just getting lucky.

You might call breaking red lights on a bike "cherry picking" from road traffic law. If I thought you'd never jay-walked in your life, I might take that point of view more seriously.

Whether or not to cycle through a particular red light is a judgement call, like many other decisions we make in relation to the law. You may feel that we should be trying to build a society where the law is applied without intelligence or pragmatism - in other words, a society where we have no choice about how we treat the law - but I suspect you wouldn't want to live in it.

And, by the way, you imply that I ignore traffic lights as a matter of course. Not so. I happen to stop at red traffic lights most of the time because I usually come to the conclusion that it's the safe thing to do. (I'm also aware that even though most Gardai do in fact turn a blind eye, some of them don't.)

Ghost Rider

blorg wrote:

Except a cyclist crashing a red light can pass the path of a car who has a green. I see this often enough. The car may have to swerve, causing an accident.

It could happen, sure, but it seems equally likely that a driver will just hit the cyclist rather than endanger his/her own life or that of someone else. Either way, it seems like an exceptional circumstance.

Anyway, I concede there are risks. I just happen to think that there is a massive difference between those posed by drivers and those posed by cyclists in that situation.

blorg wrote:

Personally I generally stop, _always_ if I would be crossing a road, although I do admit I often make a left turn on a red after checking that it is safe to do so.

I think this is actually legal in some jurisdictions - and rightly so.

Ghost Rider

Do you jay-walk?

Would the world be a better place if you didn't?

Hermy wrote:

The law is not something you can choose to ignore just because you cycle a bicycle. If we all obeyed the rules of the road the world would be a better place.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

I think this is actually legal in some jurisdictions - and rightly so.

It's allowed in New York (i.e. filtering right on red), but you must give way to pedestrians....and they do....even the taxis.

I don't think we're ready for it yet.

Cabaal

jay-walking is not however legal in Ireland and you can be fined 25e for doing it if a Gardai got off there arse and enforced it, also you can now be fined 150e for littering but again thgis is not worth **** because its not enforced

as we all know, laws are worth total **** when their not enforced

DITTKD

What should happen is that cyclists should be allowed consider red lights to be the same as flashing amber. It would be safer to go ahead of the traffic instead of mixing it up with them when the lights go green. That said, I always try my damnedest to stop at lights.

Personnally, I hate hate HATE when cyclists break the lights. I cycle faster than most people, not on purpose, its just that most people are slow, and therefore I have to overtake these light jumpers again and again and again, putting me into the traffic again and again and again. Why bother breaking lights if you’re going so slowly? (I realise I don’t have to overtake them, but jesus, I’ve places to be like.)
Anyway, lights are used to regulate traffic. They’re sequenced to allow drivers to travel through the city at a certain average speed. Therefore, there’s no point in breaking some lights, because you’re definitely going to get caught at a busier junction up the road. In rush hour at least.

Breaking lights is ignorant. It’s also extraordinarily stupid, selfish and pointless.
But the law regarding cyclists and lights needs to be changed to include a bit of cop on.

Ghost Rider

I know that. My point was that if you believe cyclists should never break the law simply because it's the law (rather than because it's inherently fair or rational) then, to be consistent, you should also maintain the same attitude to jaywalking.

Cabaal wrote:

jay-walking is not however legal in Ireland and you can be fined 25e for doing it if a Gardai got off there arse and enforced it, also you can now be fined 150e for littering but again thgis is not worth **** because its not enforced

as we all know, laws are worth total **** when their not enforced

Ghost Rider

How can you maintain this...

DITTKD wrote:

Breaking lights is... extraordinarily stupid, selfish and pointless.

... and this...

DITTKD wrote:

But the law regarding cyclists and lights needs to be changed to include a bit of cop on.

...at the same time?

cyclopath2001

By changing the way traffic lights work so that the priority is no longer the needs to motorists? By ensuring that the sensors register the presence of cyclists?

Traffic lights are primarily a way for motorists to impose order in a car-centric world.

Ghost Rider

Not sure I follow. What was that a response to...?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

By changing the way traffic lights work so that the priority is no longer the needs to motorists? By ensuring that the sensors register the presence of cyclists?

Traffic lights are primarily a way for motorists to impose order in a car-centric world.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

Not sure I follow. What was that a response to...?

Your response to DTTKD.
While undoubtedly some behaviour at traffic lights is just plain selfish, I think there is a case to be answered concerning the way traffic lights are managed for the benefit of motorists more than any other kind of road user.

Ghost Rider

Maybe so. I guess it's a technical question and I'm certainly not qualified to answer it.

Anyway, I'd be inclined to re-describe "selfish" behaviour at traffic lights as "behaviour informed by poor judgement". After all, cyclists generally stand to lose out more if they cycle into the path of an oncoming vehicle than the driver of the vehicle does (though I admit there could be exceptions to this).

I've often wondered if people who are fully licensed to drive might make better cyclists than people who aren't. Observation and awareness of other road users is a big issue in the driving test, whereas it's all too easy to hop on a bike without any experience or sense of how other road users will react.

This isn't too say there aren't a ton of sh**e drivers out there. There are - but many of them are probably unlicensed.

I guess where this is all going is that if my hypothesis about licensed drivers making better cyclists is true, it means there should be some kind of test for cyclists. I can see downsides to that, though...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Your response to DTTKD.
While undoubtedly some behaviour at traffic lights is just plain selfish, I think there is a case to be answered concerning the way traffic lights are managed for the benefit of motorists more than any other kind of road user.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

I've often wondered if people who are fully licensed to drive might make better cyclists than people who aren't. Observation and awareness of other road users is a big issue in the driving test, whereas it's all too easy to hop on a bike without any experience or sense of how other road users will react.

Ah, but stupid cyclists usually don't usually live very long.

I'd say that experienced cyclists become good qualified drivers. Planning lane use, predicting others, reading the road, listening for engine clues etc. all form part of a cyclist's survival kit.

It's easier for drivers, people just jump out of their way.

Ghost Rider

That might be true about drivers in relation to pedestrians. Drivers sure as sh*t can't take that attitude when dealing with other drivers.

My point was that we expect drivers to take a test (even though many evade it for years), yet we don't expect cyclists to do likewise, and I wonder should we...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It's easier for drivers, people just jump out of their way.

Radio Mad.

As car a driver, I don't have a problem stopping at red lights. It just defies belief that some people think it's okay for cyclists to break them? Quite simply, If you don't want to obey the law do us all a favour and stay off the roads. Problem solved.

Ghost Rider

Have you ever jaywalked in your life? Did you think it was okay to do so? If so, then it hardly "defies belief".

Nor, in my opinon, should you have been arrested for it, illegal though it was.

Radio Mad. wrote:

It just defies belief that some people think it's okay for cyclists to break them?

Agent J

Personally i think the J walking laws should be enforced espeically in the city centre. I realise it seems to be the Irish way to jay walk but this should be changed. There is obviously a difference if there isnt a cross walk or lights.
I make a point of not jay walking if there are light and if i am with a group i will wait to cross rather than just going with them.

It is not Ok for cyclists to break lights espeically in the City centre. Cars have to swerve or stop which can and does cause other accidents which the cyclist may not be aware of because they have just cycled on without seeing it. Also i find that i end up overtaking the same cyclists because they break the lights and i dont and i still catch up with them. I find the greater proportion of cyclists who do break lights are the ones without helmets as well...

I believe it should be black and white as far as the law and the spirit of the law if concerned to stop people thinking that it sometimes ok.

And seriously what the hell is the rush? Will the extra min or so really kill someone to wait?

daymobrew

Agent J wrote:

Personally i think the J walking laws should be enforced espeically in the city centre. I realise it seems to be the Irish way to jay walk but this should be changed. There is obviously a difference if there isnt a cross walk or lights.
I make a point of not jay walking if there are light and if i am with a group i will wait to cross rather than just going with them.

Around Christmas one year I watched a guy jay walk at Bachelor's Walk. He ran between moving traffic and straight into the Garda that was directing traffic :eek:
Neither that Garda, nor the others on the side of the road watching, did anything :rolleyes:

One issue (that I've written to Dublin City Council about a few times) is the extremely long traffic light cycles. It can take ages to cross a junction - we can all think of multiple examples.

Ghost Rider

They should change the name of that place to "Bachelors Wait".

daymobrew wrote:

Around Christmas one year I watched a guy jay walk at Bachelor's Walk. He ran between moving traffic and straight into the Garda that was directing traffic :eek:
Neither that Garda, nor the others on the side of the road watching, did anything :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

Radio Mad. wrote:

As car a driver, I don't have a problem stopping at red lights.

That's great & I do hope more drivers will follow your example. Soon, maybe drivers will learn to stop on orange too.

Just today, the lights changed to orange after I had entered a major junction on my bicycle, I had to make an emergency stop in the middle of the junction to avoid colliding with two cars that entered on orange coming from the opposite direction and that crossed my path. I then had to reverse to the junction entrance (on a bicycle!) to avoid obstructing traffic from the right & left.

Ghost Rider

That's some scary sh*t.

Of course, had they been cyclists breaking the lights, they wouldn't have mattered a damn...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

That's great & I do hope more drivers will follow your example. Soon, maybe drivers will learn to stop on orange too.

Just today, the lights changed to orange after I had entered a major junction on my bicycle, I had to make an emergency stop in the middle of the junction to avoid colliding with two cars that entered on orange coming from the opposite direction and that crossed my path. I then had to reverse to the junction entrance (on a bicycle!) to avoid obstructing traffic from the right & left.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

Of course, had they been cyclists breaking the lights, they wouldn't have mattered a damn...

If it had been cyclists and not motorists they would have allowed me to complete my traversal of the junction.

If it had been cyclists, the many other motorists who witnessed the incident would have written letters to the Times.

The difference between cyclists breaking the lights and motorists is that the cyclists who do it, just ride through at any time whereas motorists do it by accelerating on orange or even red & try and pass it off as being necessary for safety reasons, so as not to to get back-ended by the other 4 cars that usually tail-gate through with them.