Should cyclists run red lights?

BeerNut

Not yet, but it looks to be heading that way. Closing date for responses to the original tender was the 19th last.

niceonetom

BeerNut wrote: »

Closing date for responses to the original tender was the 19th last.

dammit, i could do that job. first thing to do would be go on a fact-finding mission to see how cycling is handled in barbados. six weeks there would be enough, then to amsterdam for a bit.

rubadub

Originally Posted by rubadub
It is technically illegal to record coronation street

BeerNut wrote: »

It is not..

Fair enough, it seems it was before 2000. My point is that there are many laws out there which are being techincally broken, and tolerated since the law was intended for another purpose. I am not sure if the law has changed but I was once told that reversing out of a driveway was illegal yet you do not see it being enforced, just like recording TV was not enforced before 2000.

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.

That is fair enough as long as you think pedestirans should have little reg plates, or ID and be done just like a driver or cyclist. Pedestrians get away with far more illegal acts, I expect most motorists break the law while pedestrians. Jaywalking has to be one of the most tolerated crimes in the land, I have seen gardai aiding and abetting schoolchildren in breaking this law, guiding them across the N11 right below a flyover which was in perfect order!

rp

rubadub wrote: »

Jaywalking has to be one of the most tolerated crimes in the land

Is 'Jaywalking' a crime? Or rather, is the crossing of non-motorways by pedestrians other than at marked crossings a crime?

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

Fair enough, it seems it was before 2000.

It was not. See 19(5)(a) and (b) of the 1963 Copyright Act. No, a video is not a film, but you wouldn't be caught on that any more than you can insist on paying a fine in pre-decimal currency because that's what how a law sets out penalties.

rubadub wrote: »

My point is that there are many laws out there which are being techincally broken, and tolerated since the law was intended for another purpose.

Yes, but your alternative is to apply the "anyone with an ounce of cop on" principle, which I think is a terrible idea, largely due to the dearth of cop on out there on the streets.

rubadub wrote: »

I was once told that reversing out of a driveway was illegal

That doesn't actually make it illegal, though. Unless it was the president or a member of the judiciary who told you it. In writing, preferably.

rp wrote:

is the crossing of non-motorways by pedestrians other than at marked crossings a crime?

Yup (section 6, near the bottom), unless there's no crossing within 50 feet.

Ghost Rider

Absolutely. And a serious one too. In fact I'd say it's up there with... oooh... cyclists turning left on red lights.

rp wrote: »

Is 'Jaywalking' a crime? Or rather, is the crossing of non-motorways by pedestrians other than at marked crossings a crime?

el tel

Apart from a personal safety stand-point, when I cycle I obey all traffic signals as I feel it's important to help establish a better reputation for cyclists in general and to maintain the good reputation of my club whose jeresy I always wear.

In my opinion red lights should apply to all road users without exception and there should be no discretion given to cyclists. Speaking from personal observation as a cyclist, pedestrian and driver, the roadcraft and understanding of the rules of the road of a majority of cyclists is so lacking that they are a danger to themselves at the best of times. Allowing some of these crazy numpties I see to exercise their own terrible judgement would be like busing lemmings to the Cliffs of Moher.

maratonass

rp wrote: »

Is 'Jaywalking' a crime? Or rather, is the crossing of non-motorways by pedestrians other than at marked crossings a crime?

The law requires you to exercise consideration when you cross (especially if there's a cyclist riding down a one-way street), but it's only specifically an offence to ignore a pedestrian signal or to cross within 15 metres (about 5 car lengths) of a crossing. Anywhere else is OK and traffic must give way to a pedestrian who has started to cross.

I don't think cyclists should go through red lights but I think there is a case for more use of special signals.

SerialComplaint

BeerNut wrote: »

It'll all be grand once our new National Cycling Czar is issued with her magic wand.

Here's the original tender notice FYI.

NewDubliner

The successful candidate will be required to:
(a) conduct desk-top research with a view to ascertaining international best practice.
(b) produce an outline policy document
(c) offer an indication of resource implications of developing a national cycle network.

Nothing in it about finding out why the previous strategy failed.

If we don't learn by our mistakes, we're doomed to repeat them.

rubadub

BeerNut wrote: »

Yes, but your alternative is to apply the "anyone with an ounce of cop on" principle, which I think is a terrible idea, largely due to the dearth of cop on out there on the streets.

My alternative is about allowing the gardai to apply the law with common sense, which I find most do. I would hate to see my taxes paying for gardai to step outside a station and arrest people for the every "technical" crime they see. First on the list would probably be somebody littering the street with ash from a cigarette, if they refuse to pay the fine then the taxpayer could be paying €1000's per week to house this person.

Most cyclists, pedestrians and motorists are all the same species, the way some go on you would think they are different animals completely- I reckon most people do have the same knowledge of the road laws. I expect people would behave in similar ways as others, e.g. if a motorist became a cyclist they might start breaking laws that they previously got irritated seeing cyclists do. If people make good judgements then it will hopefully be recognised by the gardai, if one persons "good judgement", is viewed as hazardous by a "normal" person then they will hopefully be caught for that offence. The laws have to be vague to catch a lot of possibilities and to prevent loopholes, there is no sense in paying gardai to go looking for loopholes in which to catch people for offences that the original law was not intended for.

Just today I saw 4 taxis all break the law, all going driving up onto a cycletrack and parking to allow a ambulance to pass, an arsehole gardai might have done them all, most have sense, just like the taximen did. But I have heard of arsehole cops who did fine people for aiding ambulances in a reasonable and safe manner.

Fabio

I havent had time to read through the whoel thread yet but I will say what I think about the original headline.

As a cyclist, I always stop at red lights. I cycle in Cork City and the roads are just too busy to take the risk and besides, I am using the orad and so should follow the rules on it.

However, I see the ghood points in having slightly different laws for cyclists but if drivers don't understand them (they can't even undersatand their own laws for cars!) then things will only be even more dangerous.

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

My alternative is about allowing the gardai to apply the law with common sense

That's not an alternative: that's the status quo. This thread is about cyclist behaviour, not Garda behaviour. I think cyclists should not break lights, but I also don't think every cyclist who does should be pulled up by the law. However, if a cyclist is caught by the Fuzz and given a ticking off or worse: no sympathy.

tywy

Again there's a motorist vs cyclist vibe in this thread.

I think the key to having safer roads is education! The rules of the road should be up on billboards or something so people know what they are doing wrong. I know that cyclists shouldn't run red lights, I'm not saying that needs to be put up on a billboard.
An example of what I mean is, a billboard with "Check your left mirror before turning left, there may be a cyclist on your inside". Lots of people just don't think about these things.

Advertising is the way to educating people. How many people got the rules of the road through their door, cyclist and/or motorist, and read them cover to cover, very few I expect!

Tomas_V

tywy wrote: »

Again there's a motorist vs cyclist vibe in this thread... I think the key to having safer roads is education!

The original question was should cyclists be allowed to legally cycle through red lights.

Advance stop lines are a helpful aid to permit cyclists to get a safe head-start. But, they're placed at some junctions and not at others.

In the US, I've seen 'turn right on red' work and in Switzerland, I've seen how the traffic signals turn to flashing amber when traffic is light.

These both work because everyone is more careful and considerate. That's not learned in the 'Rules of the Road'. Either people learn it from their parents or later, in court.

Membrane

Tomas_V wrote: »

The original question was should cyclists be allowed to legally cycle through red lights.

Advance stop lines are a helpful aid to permit cyclists to get a safe head-start. But, they're placed at some junctions and not at others.

In the US, I've seen 'turn right on red' work and in Switzerland, I've seen how the traffic signals turn to flashing amber when traffic is light.

In The Netherlands cyclists are often allowed to ignore a red light to turn right, this is indicated with exemption notice plates beneath lights when this applies.

Thomas_B

Interesting discussion on this thread.

As a cyclist, I hate other cyclists who break red lights. Which, in my experience of cycling daily in Dublin city centre, is about 4/5 of all cyclists. The behaviour of cycle couriers, who seem determined to gain a reputation as the 'white van men' of cycling, especially gets my goat. We have a terrible attitude to road traffic laws in this country.

The original poster asks whether cyclists should be legally allowed to break red lights. As a rule I'd say definitely not (whether *all* traffic should be allowed to turn left on red where it is safe to do so -- like in other countries -- is a different matter).

However, a situation such as Membrane notes in the Netherlands might be an idea, where specific dispensation might be given for cyclists to break lights (the obvious situation would be going straight on where there are lights for a right turn and no pedestrian crossing lights) at junctions where pedestrians wouldn't be endangered.

We seem to love the concept of 'Garda discretion' as a 'sure you're not meant to believe it really Ted' attitude to road traffic laws. We have a severe problem with road safety in this country, and I think this hazy notion of 'following the law using common sense' has a lot to do with it.

I lived for two years in Ghana, which someone told me had one of the highest rate of road deaths in the world. Ghana doesn't lack for sensible road traffic legislation. Its roads are death traps because the law isn't applied enough.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that we all have a responsibility to "do our best" to adhere to road traffic laws. Not that the laws are perfect (cycle tracks/lanes/whatever for example), but where we can (like stopping at a red light) we should do so. I firmly believe that good road user behaviour starts with obeying the law (even if you think that you can be safe while breaking the law), followed by awareness/anticipation and courtesy.

I would love to see more road users prosecuted for breaking red lights, both motorists and cyclists.

As a final point, its interesting that cyclists breaking red lights only bother me when I'm cycling myself -- if I'm driving my car, it doesn't bother me at all.

blorg

Victor wrote: »

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.

Are you sure about that? If your line of argument is that it is illegal to do those things in a "vehicle" and a bike is a "vehicle" I think that is somewhat tenuous.

Advance Stop Lines are useless IMHO. They are ignored by most and their intended use mode (come up the side in the cycle lane and move in front of the stopped traffic while light is red) is dangerous- I had my arm broken when I did just that: when the light changed the guy behind me just went right into the back of me.

I am generally of the vehicular cycling persuasion and believe most cycling facilities are counter-productive.

SerialComplaint

blorg wrote: »

Advance Stop Lines are useless IMHO. They are ignored by most and their intended use mode (come up the side in the cycle lane and move in front of the stopped traffic while light is red) is dangerous- I had my arm broken when I did just that: when the light changed the guy behind me just went right into the back of me.

Wow - Was the driver prosecuted?

Tomas_V

Thomas_B wrote: »

I lived for two years in Ghana,

A Bulgarian friend informed me that there, cyclists were required to cycle in the opposite direction to motor traffic so that they could get out of the way when a car or truck comes. Maybe some of the law-breakers we see come from places with quite different rules.

blorg

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Wow - Was the driver prosecuted?

No, but I did extract a hefty settlement out of him. In fairness it wasn't deliberate- moment of inattention sort of thing. He didn't help his case by getting out of the car and f'ing and blinding at me lying on the ground.

janney5

My original suggestion was to change the laws regarding traffic lights for cyclists, ie treat red lights as a stop sign and treat stop signs as yield signs. If this rule was changed for cyclists would those that don't break lights still obey them? Is it a law abidding issue or a safety issue?

I rarely if ever see cyclists who do obey the traffic light laws, and I cycle 25km every day through the city centre. It's only the small minority that act in a reckless manner (mainly couriers), you wouldn't run across the road without looking so why do it on a bike?

rp

janney5 wrote: »

It's only the small minority that act in a reckless manner (mainly couriers)

If it's couriers, chances are it's not a reckless manner, but just looks it to the untrained eye. You'd not survive long in that game taking stupid risks.

rubadub

janney5 wrote: »

I rarely if ever see cyclists who do obey the traffic light laws, and I cycle 25km every day through the city centre. It's only the small minority that act in a reckless manner (mainly couriers), you wouldn't run across the road without looking so why do it on a bike?

Even more rarely do I see pedestrians who obey traffic laws, and why? simple because they get away with it more, and rightly so in the majority of cases, as I keep saying most gardai have common sense. Motorists will find the laws enforced more, then cyclists, then pedestrians- and only an idiot or argumentative pedant cannot see why this is the case.

BeerNut wrote: »

That's not an alternative: that's the status quo. This thread is about cyclist behaviour, not Garda behaviour. I think cyclists should not break lights, but I also don't think every cyclist who does should be pulled up by the law. However, if a cyclist is caught by the Fuzz and given a ticking off or worse: no sympathy.

Fair enough it is the status quo. An alternative that could be in place, (it possibly is) could be a crime, determined by a judge, of a gardai wasting court time, or wasting their own gardai time, by being overly pedantic when enforcing laws which are techincally making an act illegal yet the act is obviously not what the law was intended to prevent.

Like motorists, cyclist and pedestrians you will get the odd gardai who is an arsehole and cannot be cautioned since he is going "by the book". Yet some judges toss out cases where people are caught with, e.g. 0.05grams of hash. I am not sure if anything happens to the garda in these cases. It should, it wastes huge amounts of money in administration and court/garda time, give the gardai a very bad reputation too. It is as bad as people reporting non existant crimes etc- some of these are loonies, if a garda is a looney he should be sacked as he is not fit for the job and should never have been employed in the first place. If there is no reprimand he will continue to waste taxpayers money.

doozerie

rp wrote: »

If it's couriers, chances are it's not a reckless manner, but just looks it to the untrained eye. You'd not survive long in that game taking stupid risks.

That's a view that, I believe, causes a lot of the problems with society's view of cyclists in general. You presume that couriers who break the rules of the road survive because they are skillful bike riders. I would argue that they survive mainly because the other road users (and pedestrians) take evasive action to avoid colliding with them. I have seen quite a few couriers cycle like completely arrogant muppets, apparently oblivious to the fact that the reason they haven't ended up as roadkill is more down to other people than themselves. Ask the riders themselves and they probably believe themselves to be immortal. Unfortunately, the idiot couriers get all of us cyclists labelled as inconsiderate road users.

This behaviour, and attitude, is not limited to couriers obviously, but couriers continue to be held up as a shining example of some kind of model bike rider that every cyclist should aspire to be, which is very often completely misguided. By comparison, should motorbike riders take motorbike couriers (or, heaven forbid, Domino's pizza bikers) as examples of safe and conscientious bikers? Should car drivers take taxi drivers as their model drivers?

And in terms of basic bike handling ability, there are a lot of couriers out there who have very little control of their bikes, and ironically they can tend to behave even more stupidly than the average eejit.

trellheim

I did actually put some thought into this.

Cycling defensively I will break lights if I need to. As a car driver I won't.

On the bike, there are lights on my regular run I know well

ones you do break sometimes
ones you never break

doozerie

rubadub wrote: »

Fair enough it is the status quo. An alternative that could be in place, (it possibly is) could be a crime, determined by a judge, of a gardai wasting court time, or wasting their own gardai time, by being overly pedantic when enforcing laws which are techincally making an act illegal yet the act is obviously not what the law was intended to prevent.

Like motorists, cyclist and pedestrians you will get the odd gardai who is an arsehole and cannot be cautioned since he is going "by the book". Yet some judges toss out cases where people are caught with, e.g. 0.05grams of hash. I am not sure if anything happens to the garda in these cases. It should, it wastes huge amounts of money in administration and court/garda time, give the gardai a very bad reputation too. It is as bad as people reporting non existant crimes etc- some of these are loonies, if a garda is a looney he should be sacked as he is not fit for the job and should never have been employed in the first place. If there is no reprimand he will continue to waste taxpayers money.

Why have laws that define specific limits/restrictions for anything, if the public should be free to select their own "reasonable" limit and each individual garda should be free to decide themselves what should be deemed reasonable? If I decide that selling a powerful firework to a 6-year old is perfectly reasonable (sure fireworks are only a bit of fun, ya know) should a garda be fired for considering me irresponsible and charging me?

If I break a red light and cause a car to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting me, is that "reasonable"? Maybe it is for me, considering I have saved maybe a whole minute from my journey because of not having to wait for the lights to change, but I'm sure the car driver would take a different view. What if my actions cause cars to run into each other as a result of the first car slamming on the brakes - was it still "reasonable" for me to have broken the lights?

Hagar

So basically this whole thread is about amending laws to match a set of lawless behaviour thereby allowing lawlessness to become the norm and giving it official sanction.

Let's just hope the Govt doesn't extend this tactic to drug dealers, muggers, rapists, burglars etc.

It would be a great way to bring down the crime rates.
Simply declare that nothing is illegal ergo no crimes have been committed.
Crime free Ireland here we come. :rolleyes:

Victor

Hagar wrote: »

So basically this whole thread is about amending laws to match a set of lawless behaviour thereby allowing lawlessness to become the norm and giving it official sanction.

Let's just hope the Govt doesn't extend this tactic to drug dealers, muggers, rapists, burglars etc.

It would be a great way to bring down the crime rates.
Simply declare that nothing is illegal ergo no crimes have been committed.
Crime free Ireland here we come. :rolleyes:

Not quite. Road traffic law is grossly stacked in favour of the motorist over cyclists and pedestrians. What is suggested is a rebalancing - a rebalancing that will favour motorists in certain circumstances too.

Hagar

Victor wrote: »

Not quite. Road traffic law is grossly stacked in favour of the motorist over cyclists and pedestrians. What is suggested is a rebalancing - a rebalancing that will favour motorists in certain circumstances too.

Sorry, I may have missed something, in what circumstances?