Should cyclists run red lights?

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote: »

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.

Everyone's judgement differs and is typically biased towards themselves and often without consideration of its impact on others. Which is why, for example, person A deems that driving at 100kph through a housing estate is perfectly reasonable when they are running late for an appointment, while person B deems this to be inconsiderate to them and others that live in the estate as they shouldn't have to worry about reckless muppets putting the lives of residents in danger.

People prove every day that the judgement of the individual is very often anything but reasonable, or safe, for the rest of society. Which is why we actually need laws to keep us in line (or to hammer us with when we step outside them). The fact that the gardai, and the courts, are kept busy suggests that a significant number of people regularly choose to ignore the laws and chances are many of them argue that they did so because the laws are somehow unreasonable for them in their circumstances.

In any case, if a person can't afford the time to wait for a red traffic light to change to green, then they must lead a very full and important life, and far be it from society to try to hold them back...

Ghost Rider

I agree. Many motorists are simply resentful of the freedom cyclists have, and cite the law not because they believe it is intrinsically right or because they believe cyclists are endangering the lives of others, but because it makes them feel better about their decision to drive.

Recently I had a punter, all set to climb into his "sports" utility vehicle, yelling at me angrily "Do you know you're breaking the law?" Truthfully, I was cycling down a one-way street but the street was quiet and he was clearly just looking for someone to vent his spleen at.

I cycled on for a bit, then turned around, cycled back to him and said "Yes, I know I'm breaking the law. And in what way am I endangering anyone?" I pointed out that the street had recently been changed from a two-way to a one-way and that this decision was punitive to cyclists. I told him the re-designation of the street was something I found questionable and asked him to explain why he thought it was a good idea.

His answer was to look at me, blink for a few seconds and blurt out "You'd better take that up with the law". I laughed and cycled on.

If someone is going to cite the law, they'd better be able to defend it.

rubadub wrote: »

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.

Ghost Rider

You speak as if judgement were not something already in regular and frequent use by even the best and most considerate road users. In fact, you cannot pass a driving test without good judgement (you're not supposed to be able to, at any rate).

Judgement is not the same as inclination or desire. Judgement is guided. In matters of road safety, judgdment involves the consideration of many factors, including what is safe for others, what will result in reasonable progress for you, what is considerate to other road users etc.


Of course there is bad judgement - you can call it recklessness, and we have penalties for it - but that is neither here nor there. There is absolutely no question whatsoever of eliminating the role of judgement in road safety. It plays an enormous role right now, it always has and it always will. I am merely talking of recognising that fact. I believe the Gardai do - most of the time anyway. If they didn't, you'd see a hell of a lot more cyclists in court.

doozerie wrote: »

Everyone's judgement differs and is typically biased towards themselves and often without consideration of its impact on others. Which is why, for example, person A deems that driving at 100kph through a housing estate is perfectly reasonable when they are running late for an appointment, while person B deems this to be inconsiderate to them and others that live in the estate as they shouldn't have to worry about reckless muppets putting the lives of residents in danger.

People prove every day that the judgement of the individual is very often anything but reasonable, or safe, for the rest of society. Which is why we actually need laws to keep us in line (or to hammer us with when we step outside them). The fact that the gardai, and the courts, are kept busy suggests that a significant number of people regularly choose to ignore the laws and chances are many of them argue that they did so because the laws are somehow unreasonable for them in their circumstances.

In any case, if a person can't afford the time to wait for a red traffic light to change to green, then they must lead a very full and important life, and far be it from society to try to hold them back...

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Of course there is bad judgement - you can call it recklessness, and we have penalties for it - but that is neither here nor there. There is absolutely no question whatsoever of eliminating the role of judgement in road safety. It plays an enormous role right now, it always has and it always will. I am merely talking of recognising that fact. I believe the Gardai do - most of the time anyway. If they didn't, you'd see a hell of a lot more cyclists in court.

You use "judgement" as justification for breaking laws relating to red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets, etc. You believe that there are no ramification of you doing so, but others might disagree (I certainly do). Other people use "judgement" as the reason for speeding through built-up areas, parking in cycle tracks, cycling/plowing through pedestrians who are lawfully crossing the road, etc.

By arguing, and putting into practice, this idea that judgement should allow you to ignore existing rules of the road, you open up that option to everyone. Do you honestly believe that everyone who takes this "judgement" option will really weigh up the risks to other people of flaunting the rules of the road, and will opt not to do so if there is the slightest risk of someone being hurt? My experiences on a daily basis suggest that you are wrong if you do believe this.

janney5

I have twice been stopped by Gardai for breaking a red light on my bike (both times when pedestrian lights were green and no pedestrians in sight). Didn't have much complaints as I was breaking the rules of the road, but all I was expecting was a slap on the wrists.

First time it happened I was pulled over, given a lecture, all my details were taken (including ID) and I was told to expect a court summons in the post. Went away from the situation completely outraged, aghast at all the other more serious laws being flouted all around us. Second time I was just told not to do it again. Simple as.

I just can't see the reasoning of what developed the first time when so many more serious offences are happening on our roads, especially as I was a danger to nobody. I felt all the Garda was doing was to make an example of me in front of passing motorists. He himself stopped me in a patrol car.

Cyclists aren't motorists, but neither are they pedestrians. They have different needs and face different dangers, but also have unique opportunities. These opportunities are what attracts me and others to pick the bike over the car. More should be done to encourage cycling, not discourage them!

By the way, the court summons has yet to arrive over 2 years later!

niceonetom

janney5 wrote: »

Cyclists aren't motorists, but neither are they pedestrians. They have different needs and face different dangers

This thread and the "Legal Alcohol Limit?" for cyclists have the same core issue.

we know the rules of the road, but don't think they should be applied to us in the same way they are to motorists. well we aren't motorists and applying the exact same rules to me as to a six axle juggernaut seems nonsensical. we lie somewhere in between pedestrians and motorists, and should have our own code of conduct, however that is arrived at. the cyclist who pedantically dominates a lane with an "i'm a vehicle too" attitude and is just as much of a g0bsh1te as the one who thinks that traffic regs are none of his concern and breezes down the footpath...

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

. Do you honestly believe that everyone who takes this "judgement" option will really weigh up the risks to other people of flaunting the rules of the road, and will opt not to do so if there is the slightest risk of someone being hurt?

Then that is called being reckless as he said.

I personally broke a red light in a car during my driving test, and I passed. I might well have failed if I had obeyed the law and not used my own judgement.

niceonetom wrote: »

we know the rules of the road, but don't think they should be applied to us in the same way they are to motorists. well we aren't motorists and applying the exact same rules to me as to a six axle juggernaut seems nonsensical.

Yes the laws are there for a purpose, and everybody with an ounce of cop on knows the purpose. It is technically illegal to record coronation street but you will never hear of people being done for it- that law is in place to stop people bootlegging 1000's of copies and selling them. Unfortunately you will get the odd arsehole garda like the one mentioned above, if he was a bicycle garda I doubt he would have done it. He is probably another bitter motorist abusing his power, and not enforcing the law for its true purpose.

Ghost Rider

As I said, judgement is guided. It's not the same as indulging yourself e.g. breaking red lights simply because you want to go faster, however dangerous it might be for others.

To answer your question below, no I don't believe everyone uses their judgement all the time. There are those who don't use judgement and just do whatever the hell they like, and there are those who use judgement but do so badly (or make bad judgements, to put it another way). They are two very different categories of road user, in my opinion.

And by the way, I'm not against laws. For example, I find it hard to believe how the consumption of any alcohol whatsoever is compatible with retaining good powers of judgement in driving (- there's probably research to back that up), and that is a perfectly good reason for having a hard and fast rule about not drinking and driving.

But that is in no way a contradiction. As I said, when judgement applies and when it doesn't is up for debate because - guess what? - when to apply the law strictly and when to apply it loosely is also a matter of judgement!

Mostly, I stop at red lights. But there are times (e.g when a light that exists purely for pedestrians to cross has gone red and there is nobody waiting to cross) when I do a quick risk assessment in my head and conclude it is reasonable and safe to break the light. If I were a driver, I probably wouldn't come to the same conclusion in that situation because the consequences of my being wrong (were, for example, someone to come running out of a building and try to cross at the lights unexpectedly) would probably be much more severe.

Risk assessments of a rough kind (but of a kind that we do all the time, and no less reliable for being approximate) are an important component of deploying judgement. That people sometimes make mistakes is neither here nor there; the risks posed by cyclists are generally very small, and that is precisely why the law should have a certain flexibility in relation to us.

doozerie wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that everyone who takes this "judgement" option will really weigh up the risks to other people of flaunting the rules of the road, and will opt not to do so if there is the slightest risk of someone being hurt? My experiences on a daily basis suggest that you are wrong if you do believe this.

Ghost Rider

Niceonecyril.

niceonetom wrote: »

we know the rules of the road, but don't think they should be applied to us in the same way they are to motorists. well we aren't motorists and applying the exact same rules to me as to a six axle juggernaut seems nonsensical. we lie somewhere in between pedestrians and motorists, and should have our own code of conduct, however that is arrived at. the cyclist who pedantically dominates a lane with an "i'm a vehicle too" attitude and is just as much of a g0bsh1te as the one who thinks that traffic regs are none of his concern and breezes down the footpath...

Mucco

Traffic lights aren't designed for cyclists. Many induction loop lights in Dublin don't detect a bike.

M

oobydooby

doozerie wrote: »

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.

Dude, do I understand you here correctly? Whether any of us breaks the law or is rude or ignorant, it NEVER EVER justifies a motorist giving out punishment. The consequences of ignorant cyclists are to stress out motorists and pedestrians, but rarely more serious. A motorist can maim a cyclist with one twitch of their angry foot or elbow. No comparison, no justification. Any motorist who took out their rage on a cyclist, even if they felt justified is just as bad as those scumbags who deal out 'punishment beatings'.

As for the law, flashing amber for cyclists would make sense. I always yield to traffic even if my light is green;) The status quo is okay for me, the gardai seem to enforce the laws sensibly.

jman0

While i agree with a lot of the comments in the Yes camp; i'd have to say No.
For one the standard of cycling is poor enough already and i think such a rule would make it even worse by encouraging the notion that as a cyclist, rules of the road are not applicable.
And two, i *think* there is already a negative perception among motorists toward cyclists and this will aggravate things.

ie: pig ignorant drivers whom have the most cursory grasp of the Rules of the Road will see cyclists "breaking red lights" and insist on doing the same.

kenmc

Well at least there are (supposed to be) a loadless unqualified-to-drive people trying their best to kill us as from next week! Best thing the government has introduced for a long time.

Ghost Rider

It's not up to cyclists to educate drivers or to provide them with a good example to follow!

jman0 wrote: »

While i agree with a lot of the comments in the Yes camp; i'd have to say No.
For one the standard of cycling is poor enough already and i think such a rule would make it even worse by encouraging the notion that as a cyclist, rules of the road are not applicable.
And two, i *think* there is already a negative perception among motorists toward cyclists and this will aggravate things.

ie: pig ignorant drivers whom have the most cursory grasp of the Rules of the Road will see cyclists "breaking red lights" and insist on doing the same.

Mucco

Mucco wrote: »

Traffic lights aren't designed for cyclists. Many induction loop lights in Dublin don't detect a bike.

M

I've had this problem when trying to exit UCD by the Stillorgan exit. There's no way for me to get across the road unless I break the lights, go by the pedestrian lights, or hope that something with lots of metal comes up behind me.

Ghost Rider

It had to be done at some stage. Timing it right now, though, is impeccably Machiavellian as it provides a very effective decoy issue for our otherwise beleagured Minister.

kenmc wrote: »

Well at least there are (supposed to be) a loadless unqualified-to-drive people trying their best to kill us as from next week! Best thing the government has introduced for a long time.

cyclopath2001

niceonetom wrote: »

we know the rules of the road, but don't think they should be applied to us in the same way they are to motorists.

Your summary is not fair to the proposal. It's not about ignoring the law, it's about changing it.

Traffic lights exist because motorists use roads selfishly. Pedestrians and cyclists have to put up with the consequences.

Changing the law to allow cyclists to break red (or even amber lights as many motorists do anyway) would lead to confusion. Better would be to introduce special signals for cyclists which recognise the priority that should be given to people who use efficient space-saving vehicles. Similarly, pedestrian phases should be longer and more frequent.

Pete4779

janney5 wrote: »

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.

I found that Dublin was quite acceptable on my routes - N11, and out to Rathfarnham and on to Tallaght over the M50. Quite good bicycle paths for most of it, including along the Dodder.

Now I'm in Galway which is the ass-end of the world for progress and they barely have properly surfaced roads here. It is quite quite dangerous cycling here as roads are narrow, really REALLY poorly surfaced and apart from some very old blacked tarmac footpath markings there is nothing for the cyclist - it's easier walking!

I don't think it's a good idea for cyclists to break lights or make their own rules. We should be advocating more inclusion into planning, and bicycle lights along with car lights and pedestrian lights at every junction as in much of the Netherlands.

Now, one thing I DO do is cross a road if the green man for pedestrians is on. As in, a 4 way junction (e.g., N11 where it is straight down to Galloping Green, or right to Stillorgan, left to Blackrock). If the left side pedestrians get a green man to cross forwards, I will go with them and keeping going along the direction of the main road. From what I've seen, many countries including Netherlands and Austria have bicycle lights that go green with the pedesitrian lights, alothough the cars may still be held on red.

Victor

is_that_so wrote: »

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

There is a case to have the law changed. It is also illegal to park your bike on the footpath or to cycle on a hard shoulder.

copacetic

Myth wrote: »

I've had this problem when trying to exit UCD by the Stillorgan exit. There's no way for me to get across the road unless I break the lights, go by the pedestrian lights, or hope that something with lots of metal comes up behind me.

do you mean the N11 exit? you can probably set the lights off if you place yourself directly over the loops..

311

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Your summary is not fair to the proposal. It's not about ignoring the law, it's about changing it.

Traffic lights exist because motorists use roads selfishly. Pedestrians and cyclists have to put up with the consequences.

Changing the law to allow cyclists to break red (or even amber lights as many motorists do anyway) would lead to confusion. Better would be to introduce special signals for cyclists which recognise the priority that should be given to people who use efficient space-saving vehicles. Similarly, pedestrian phases should be longer and more frequent.

The lights for cyclists ,sounds like a great idea .

Would it be only for critical junctions and in busy city areas though ?

I can picture a minature flashing amber cycling light ,hanging to the left of a standard set of traffic lights.
It would probably give cyclists more acknowledgement on the roads aswell.

Personally speaking on the breaking lights issues ,I think it's unsafe and would only add tension to the motorist Vs cyclist war.

Demonique

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

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.

I heard about this as well. It was a cyclist and it would have been the incident the poster mentioned because the incident I heard about involved a cyclist going down a one-way street (I also heard he was on the pavement), hitting a pedestrian who hit his head and died. I also heard the cyclist tried to flee the scene, but was prevented from doing so

Demonique

I'll have to say no as I was nearly run over by some twunt who broke the red lights at a pedestrian crossing when there were several people crossing the road. He nearly fell off his bike because some guy grabbed the back of his bike to prevent him from getting away and then proceeded to give him a right bollixing

cazzy

The rules of the road apply to cyclists just like motorists.
Id make them wear little identifiable registration plates on their bikes and do them for dangerous cycling just like a driver.
Ive nearly got run down by a cyclist as a pedestrian on a number of occasions while I had the green light to cross the road.
I was a cyclist for years and i always obeyed the lights at junctions and stopped at red pedestrian lights (but if there was no pedestrians around Id go - but maybe not if I could be done for it)

cyclion

Demonique wrote: »

I heard about this as well. It was a cyclist and it would have been the incident the poster mentioned because the incident I heard about involved a cyclist going down a one-way street (I also heard he was on the pavement), hitting a pedestrian who hit his head and died. I also heard the cyclist tried to flee the scene, but was prevented from doing so

The poster didn't say if it happened in Ireland and has not provided further details. It's not clear if it happened at traffic lights. So, it's not certain that it's the same incident you mention here.

The allegation is bugging the heck out of me as it's an awful thing for a cyclist to do and I recall being quite relieved (in a way) when I heard it clarified that it was a motorcyclist. I've looked for the story on the net and can't find anything about it. You'd think it would have made the papers. It's quite rare for a cyclist to fatally injure a pedestrian.

Got any refs to it?

SerialComplaint

cazzy wrote: »

The rules of the road apply to cyclists just like motorists.
Id make them wear little identifiable registration plates on their bikes and do them for dangerous cycling just like a driver.

This might be an attractive idea in theory, but it would be terrible in practice. It would require a couple of hundred civil servants to manage these registrations. It would slow down every bike sale/purchase transaction, and would be impossible to enforce at the land border up North.

We don't need extra rules. Let's just enforce the ones we have and let the Gardai start catching and prosecuting more of the minority of dangerous cyclists.

*Page*

SerialComplaint wrote: »

This might be an attractive idea in theory, but it would be terrible in practice. It would require a couple of hundred civil servants to manage these registrations. It would slow down every bike sale/purchase transaction, and would be impossible to enforce at the land border up North.

We don't need extra rules. Let's just enforce the ones we have and let the Gardai start catching and prosecuting more of the minority of dangerous cyclists.

totally agree!

PeadarofAodh

I obey red lights all the time unless
1)I'm turning left
2)I'm cycling early weekend mornings to training and only then when there's no traffic to be seen and I've slowed down to completely check for oncoming traffic.

I've seen some people completely disregard red lights and it freaks the sh!t out of me. Having been knocked down by a motorbike and car in the past through no fault of my own I know it hurts. A lot.

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

It is technically illegal to record coronation street

It is not.

To me, this boils down to our need to better laid-out streets, and rules of the road which mean we don't have to behave like other road users. It'll all be grand once our new National Cycling Czar is issued with her magic wand.

niceonetom

BeerNut wrote: »

National Cycling Czar

have we got a czar (tzar?) now? that's an email address i want.