Should cyclists run red lights?

janney5

Interesting article here on such a topic, with tonnes of insightful comments.

Makes me wonder if we could have an Idaho type situation in Ireland where cyclists are legally allowed treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs. I know this is a touchy subject with some cyclists, but I personally think it would be a great idea. It's pretty much how I treat traffic lights now, and I know that I'm not the only one.

Some people do take it to the extreme though, but I find most cyclists who break red lights do so in a safe manner, i.e. slowing down, scanning the junction and yielding to pedestrians and cars. Obviously I'm not talking about the super busy O'Connell St. type junctions, common sense must still prevail.

Cars are the dangerous ones when it comes to breaking red lights anyway. The amount of cars that speed up to make it through a RED light in Dublin is downright ridiculous!

mikemac

Only possible exception would be a wide road at a pedestrian crossing.
All pedestrians are safetly across and you can see both sides on the crossing.

I'd consider that safe but you do it at your own risk.

But many cyclists (couriers in a rush )just weave their way through and send pedestrians scattering :mad:

Slunk

I always slow down, scan and proceed through unless its a really busy junction.

Dirk Gently

micmclo wrote: »

(couriers in a rush )

I'm probably going to leave myself open for abuse here but couriers piss me off big time. I've seen a lot of them totally disregard not only their own safety but peds and motorists too. I cringe when I see them as it gives fuel to those who label all cyclists and dangerous. I understand they have deadlines and they probably have more to deal with bad motorists more than the rest of us due to being on the road all day but some of the manouvers I've seen these guys pull are down right stupid.

johnnyrotten

Slunk wrote: »

I always slow down, scan and proceed through unless its a really busy junction.

Muppet

DITTKD

Cyclists should be allowed to treat red lights as flashing amber lights.

They should be allowed, but they're not.

johnnyrotten

DITTKD wrote: »

Cyclists should be allowed to treat red lights as flashing amber lights.

They should be allowed, but they're not.

How in the name of God did you come up with that one?

Hagar

As a motorist I fully endorse this idea.

Pherekydes

I agree with Hagar here. Pedestrians should be allowed ignore lights at pedestrian crossings, too. It's no fun driving anymore.

Raam

Slow coach wrote: »

I agree with Hagar here. Pedestrians should be allowed ignore lights at pedestrian crossings, too. It's no fun driving anymore.

They already do.

RuggieBear

clown bag wrote: »

I'm probably going to leave myself open for abuse here but couriers piss me off big time. I've seen a lot of them totally disregard not only their own safety but peds and motorists too. I cringe when I see them as it gives fuel to those who label all cyclists and dangerous. I understand they have deadlines and they probably have more to deal with bad motorists more than the rest of us due to being on the road all day but some of the manouvers I've seen these guys pull are down right stupid.

a bike courier killed a friend of mine's step father by going the wrong way down a one way street. Knocked him to the ground, he banged his head and never regained conciousness.

Ghost Rider

I think the answer to this one is yes.

And no.

Pete4779

janney5 wrote: »

Interesting article here on such a topic, with tonnes of insightful comments.

Makes me wonder if we could have an Idaho type situation in Ireland where cyclists are legally allowed treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs. I know this is a touchy subject with some cyclists, but I personally think it would be a great idea. It's pretty much how I treat traffic lights now, and I know that I'm not the only one.

It would be a great idea if there were clear markings and consistent cycle lanes and cycle traffic lights, and if people were required to learn the rules of the road in relation to bikes.

But, it wouldn't really work unless car drivers knew that, because as it is, there is considerable ignorance of the world outside the car from many drivers perspectives.

I always stop at a traffic light if required - and I think it makes drivers see you as part of the active road traffic as well.

cyclopath2001

RuggieBear wrote: »

a bike courier killed a friend of mine's step father by going the wrong way down a one way street. Knocked him to the ground, he banged his head and never regained conciousness.

Your posting seems a bit off-topic. We're not discussing cycling down one way streets. I hope you're not trying to have a 'bitch' at cyclists here.

Can you tell us where this happened and the approximate date? I'd like to check some more of the facts. It reminds me of an incident that I'd heard of. But, instead of it being a cycle courier, it was a motor-cycle courier.

RainyDay

janney5 wrote: »

Some people do take it to the extreme though, but I find most cyclists who break red lights do so in a safe manner, i.e. slowing down, scanning the junction and yielding to pedestrians and cars.

Maybe the guy coming down Morehampton Rd towards town yesterday evening who managed to almost hit both a pedestrian and a car is the exception?

kenmc

Cyclists should certainly be allowed to carefully turn left on red like cars can turn right on red in some states in the USA - especially if there is a cycle path all the way around the junction.
The alternative of course is to simply dismount, become a pedestrian and walk around the corner, and then remount - amounts to the same thing but without the inconvenience of having to dis/remount.

daymobrew

Pete4779 wrote: »

I always stop at a traffic light if required - and I think it makes drivers see you as part of the active road traffic as well.

I never run red lights. I see stopping and obeying current traffic laws as good PR - it shows other road users (peds and motorists) that not all cyclists are dangerous.

Of course, being human, we don't remember the good ones too well.

markpb

I think we would be better adopting a system where pedestrian lights go green for a second and then amber for long enough to cross the road. Pedestrians can only start to cross on green (not amber) and when they've cleared the junction, cars and cyclists are free to go. Spain and a lot of American states allow this and it makes a lot of sense.

is_that_so

Cyclist are road users and IMO should obey the law. Who defines what is safe?
There are some cyclists who should not be allowed on bikes simply because they are a danger to themselves and others. Cyclists and I have been one at different times, constantly talk about how much at risk they are and how little risk they pose. The most vulnerable road user on the road is a pedestrian and they can exhibit all the intelligence of lemmings at times. Red lights serve a purpose and it is not to frustrate people.

paddyb

I think be allowed to turn right on left on red is a good idea. it works well in the US because drivers stop if there is people crossing at a pedestrian crossing - I dont know whether the same thing would happen over here

doozerie

We all (cyclists, drivers, bikers, sometimes pedestrians) have to share the same road space, and the safest way to do that is if we all adhere to a common set of rules. The more that individual people, or groups, start to apply their own set of rules, the more dangerous it becomes for us all.

Everyone gets pissed off at having to sit at red traffic lights when there is no other traffic around, this is not unique to cyclists. If you decide that it is "safe" for you to break the lights, then you have to accept that others can adopt the same approach whether they are cyclists, drivers, or whatever. Pretty soon you might as well ignore the red lights completely 'cos everybody else will.

As cyclists who regularly break red lights continue to suit themselves, the level of animosity increases towards all cyclists which makes it more dangerous for all of us. I am tired of trying to persuade even rational people that they are wrong to label all cyclists as not caring about the rules of the road, these days I just suggest that they not go out of their way to avoid mowing down some idiot that pulls out in front of them by doing something stupid like breaking a red light.

DITTKD

doozerie wrote: »

We all (cyclists, drivers, bikers, sometimes pedestrians) have to share the same road space, and the safest way to do that is if we all adhere to a common set o
f rules. The more that individual people, or groups, start to apply their own se
t of rules, the more dangerous it becomes for us all.

Indeed.

This is why I try not to break lights. It is often safer to do so for the individual cyclist, but the individual cyclist isn’t the only person on the road.

There should be all sorts of changes to the rules of the road, and there should be more cop on in this countries planning of transport infrastructure……the laws should be different, but they aren't, so deal with it.
Hence my earlier post which apparently confused some people. Sorry about that

About the having to wait at red lights when there’s no one around, I’ve been told in Italy during the night (when its quiet) all the lights go to flashing amber, which makes sense.

spudington16

Surely introducing a measure such as this could only add to the carnage currently suffered on Irish roads.

If anything, stricter enforcement of present rules is necessary to keep cyclists in check.

*Page*

I feel red light is a stop light. if you are cycling on the road you ride like your in a car and wait for your light to be green. if you are on the path act like a pedestrian and press the light and wait for the green man to tell you to go...


I've had so many bumps from other cyclist that decided to go when their light is red and mine is green...

Ghost Rider

I believe there are circumstances in which cyclists should be allowed to cycle through red lights, though I think carefulness and good judgement are paramount, just as they are in any other road situation.

I have no time for the argument that "the law is the law", as if the demand for obedience were self-evident. The laws of which we're speaking here are not natural. They're made by people and un-made by people. They're surrounded by debate and controversy; they're also historically contingent and therefore vary from era to era. It's wrong to ignore either of those facts, as if our roles as citizens was to mutely accept the missives handed down to us by some faceless, Kafka-esque elite.

So the law is not always best understood as a set of "musts" and "must-nots". Sometimes it is best taken as a set of guidelines. The difference between when you should take it literally and when you should take it "laterally" is, of course, a matter of judgment. That is the way law enforcement officials see it (even though they may not admit it publicly) and that is the way the public sees it, for the most part. And frankly I would rather live in a society in which that was the case than one in which the law was applied blindly and without consideration for context or circumstance.

Lecture over.

DITTKD

spudington16 wrote: »

Surely introducing a measure such as this could only add to the carnage currently suffered on Irish roads.

If anything, stricter enforcement of present rules is necessary to keep cyclists in check.

Well, personally I reckon It would be a better idea to have rules, systems and procedures that are actually feasible, practical and enforceable, and are competently and comprehensively put in place and maintained by those responsible; systems that consider the needs of all road users in relation to each other, as well as the practicalities of real life road use and the long term objectives of the transport system in a wider social, economic and environmental context.

I think that would be better than considering cyclists as a group that should be kept “in check”.

Ghost Rider

I agree.

At present, the needs of motorists are holding everybody else back. (It's not their fault, of course, it's the fault of successive political administrations prioritising motorists over everybody else.) Traffic lights are just one of a number of measures taken to manage problems caused by motor traffic, yet cyclists are expected to submit to these measures as if they themselves were responsible for the problems. It is not a fair situation and no amount of repeating glib clichés like "the law is the law" will make it so.

DITTKD wrote: »

Well, personally I reckon It would be a better idea to have rules, systems and procedures that are actually feasible, practical and enforceable, and are competently and comprehensively put in place and maintained by those responsible; systems that consider the needs of all road users in relation to each other, as well as the practicalities of real life road use and the long term objectives of the transport system in a wider social, economic and environmental context.

I think that would be better than considering cyclists as a group that should be kept “in check”.

*Page*

the problem is 1 person maybe very careful and watches everthing around them and thats fine, were as the next person might not, you can have one rule for one and another for someone else, so the best way is by taking the dumbest a$$ and developing a rule to make sure we are all safe from him... and abiding by it

Membrane

DITTKD wrote: »

Well, personally I reckon It would be a better idea to have rules, systems and procedures that are actually feasible, practical and enforceable, and are competently and comprehensively put in place and maintained by those responsible; systems that consider the needs of all road users in relation to each other, as well as the practicalities of real life road use and the long term objectives of the transport system in a wider social, economic and environmental context.

Agreed in principle. But I ask myself the question: "What problem would be solved by changing the current road traffic rules" to reflect the principles that you've outlined? It's not as if cyclists are being fined regularly for things currently classified as a road traffic offence that are in fact not a danger. Possibly there would be less resentment amongst other road users, resentment can result in agrression which can pose a danger, but as this and other threads on this subject have demonstrated, it may prove to be very difficult to convince others that such changes are fair and logical. Such changes in law would need to be understood to be fair and logical by the general population. If not then the resentment is unlikely to diminish, although it may shift from cyclists to the politicians who would propose such a change (making it unrealistic that they would support it).

An alternative is to leave the rules as they are, and instruct the Gardai to channel their resources towards policing the offences that are most dangerous and damaging. This by enlarge is the case at the moment.

janney5

Ghost Rider wrote: »

At present, the needs of motorists are holding everybody else back

Agree 100%. Motorists are given priority in almost every situation on Irish roads. It's only in the last few years that public transport and cycle facilities have become important to the government.

In the majority of cases (especially in Dublin) it is too late, and road systems are so over developed that there is no room for bus/cycles lanes and certainly no room for any alternative means of transport such as the Luas.

An architect friend mine recently told me that the idea was even once mooted to fill in parts of the Grand Canal so as to provide more space for roads. That's the only pleasant and peaceful part of my cycle, and it only lasts 5mins for me! Sounds like something a short sighted government might have considered though.

rubadub

is_that_so wrote: »

Cyclist are road users and IMO should obey the law. Who defines what is safe?

You can obey the law and not be safe too. I frequently break road laws for my own safety and the safety of others, I do this in full view of the gardai many times who have never questioned me, in fact I imagine they are pleased to see me do it, as are other motorists.

Some motorists can be very hypocritical, a mate of mine was going mental when I said I break red lights, but fully admitted breaking lights while being a pedestrian. I then explained we break the law in the exact same situations for the exact same reasons, and was asking if I got off the pedals and walked instead of cycling would it suddenly be OK. He was presuming by breaking lights I meant going flying out infront of traffic, while I was breaking them like many pedestrians do, with common sense, aiding traffic. e.g. on my commute I can foretell a light change onto the dual carriageway, so head off 2 seconds early- this allows cars to take off quicker as I am not in the way. I also "jaywalk" on my bike like millions of pedestrians do everyday in full view of gardai who do not caution you- this is because most gardai know why the laws are really there, and are not pedantic arseholes complaining when common sense tells them you are doing nothing wrong (in common sense law).

Another example is cycling on clear empty footpaths, uphill at a slow pace, allowing traffic behind to pass me. I did this every day on my commute and the gardai passed many times- no problems. When a pedestrian did come I would stop completely and stand with the bike between my legs. Gardai have also allowed me to cycle on grafton street since i do it in a reasonable manner, unlike some lunatics- the garda has common sense and can see I am in control and if I was to walk with the bike alongside me it might be more likely to cause and accident- people bumping into pedals etc.

Many motorists are just frustrated in traffic, asking "why cant I do that", being pedantic when really they know the reason why a garda would find a cyclist or pedestrian breaking the law is not as serious as a car. And I imagine many moaning motorists would break the law if they cycled, and I bet the majority have jaywalked too.