Should cyclists run red lights?

Victor

If you have a junction where 'left turn on red' (with yield to other traffic / pedestrians, etc.) is permitted for cyclists then quite a few cyclists can clear the junction and not be sitting in front of motorists or to the left of motorists wanting to turn left.

Let me do a sketch.

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

Why have laws that define specific limits/restrictions for anything,

Guidelines are helpful- thats why... And if a illegal act does warrant prosecution then the relative amount/limit can be taken into account. e.g. a person who is 5 times the alcohol limit should get a greater punishment than a person 1.1 times the limit who was caught in the exact same situation. A dealer found with 10kg of heroin is done more than one with 1kg.

doozerie wrote: »

if the public should be free to select their own "reasonable" limit

The public will see the limit and decide for them selves if it is worth the risk in breaking the law. They do all the time, pedestrians are by far the worst offenders of breaking traffic laws.

doozerie wrote: »

each individual garda should be free to decide themselves what should be deemed reasonable?

Yes- they already do, it was already mentioned that this is the status quo. And judges can throw out cases that they feel are not reasonable too- like low quantities of drugs I mentioned. The possession charges on some drugs can be quite low- the real intention of this is so if a main dealer -who never handles quanitities (most dont)- is ever caught with a small amount of drugs, then they can throw the book at them. It is not intended to waste taxpayers money prosecuting a 80 year old cancer patient who had a cup of cannabis tea to stave off nausea, though it is techincally illegal.

doozerie wrote: »

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?

Up to the judge. I reckon most would prosecute you. I reckon most would not prosecute you for selling a low power banger legally bought up the north conforming to all UK standards to an adult friend who you knew would use it responsibly. Hopefully the garda was interviewed in the first place properly before becoming a garda and trained properly and understoond the intention of laws, and that he was not the type of pedantic legalistic arsehole who would waste court and taxpayers money on such an obviously unneccesary arrest.

doozerie wrote: »

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.

And the judge and garda and would take a different view too- you are stating the obvious here, that is what I am getting at. You seem to be trying get me to come up with some sort of formula or legalistic defintion of "common sense" or "reasonable". Common sense should tell you there is none...

Tomas_V

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. It would be a great way to bring down the crime rates.

It's a bit extreme comparing pedestrians and cyclists to criminals. It's language like this that polarises various players and turns debates into brawls. One can no more argue against reviewing the road traffic laws than one can argue against reforming tax laws. If people campaign to repeal stamp duty or to introduce a socially desirable relief, would you describe them as lawless tax evaders looking to legalise an unlawful activity?

Freedom of movement is governed by law, not criminalised. These laws can be changed.

In the city centre, I think we should get rid of traffic lights completely, reduce the speed limit to 30kph and require every vehicle to give way to pedestrians and to one other vehicle merging from the right.

Traffic lights are a failed attempt to legislate for something that people should be able to do themselves: respect others.

Hagar

Victor wrote: »

Let me do a sketch.

Fire away, but don't illustrate it with any joined up writing, it might be too much for me. :rolleyes:


The reality is a large proportion of cyclist do that now, against the law.
So we are talking about amending the law to accommodate current law-breakers.

It's a bit extreme comparing pedestrians and cyclists to criminals.

It may seem extreme, but law breakers are criminals.

Karma

no to breaking lights, but there should be something better.
I personally think there should be a light system for this, as mentioned before(by Victor?) like there is for some bus's. simple, straightforward.

The rights and wrongs of what cyclists do, is not the question here, this time. All road using groups have their share of "The good, the bad and the indifferent" so, it is a case of mudslinging.

On the point someone brought into this topic of a bicycle messenger killing a pedestrian, yes it happened, but not with all the "Joe Duffy show interest". the daughter of the unfortunate man, said he was thrown 20+feet into the air,on the show. b*llocks.
(bike going wrong way-was being pushed, he got on the bike just after the man walked out of HIS office on lower baggot st, while on the phone and started to cross the road(WITHOUT LOOKING), his colleague points out the oncoming car and they step back to the kerb. At this point , HE falls over the front wheel of my friends bike and hits his head off the edge of the kerb. he gets up and rightfully gives my friend abuse(don't know how much) HE says he is fine but my friend points out because he hit his head, a ambulance should be called for him. After a few minutes they agree to call one. they exchanged details and wait. the ambulance crew suggest that The jaywalker is ok. my friend is insistent that the jaywalker be brought into hospital. which he is. my friend goes to visit him at 9.30 that evening, only to find out that he is having emergency surgery for a blood clot. he goes into a coma and passes away in just under a month.
my friend and former colleague, stayed at the scene and did everything he could and his life came apart as a result of this accident. he was charged and brought to court, was attacked by the jaywalkers son in court. he has never been the same and this has affected him deeply. He is now institutionalised, and probably will be for some time.


*******************************************************

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

cyclion wrote: »

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?

Another former colleague, went thru pretty much the same thing except he was going the right way and instantly killed a kid who stepped in front of him(police witness on the scene)this was outside trinity.-kids messing and stepped into traffic. he too quit and needed years of counselling. he was never the same, and it was not his fault.

I know there will be one or 2 of you thinking there is some law to be quoted for all this. guess there is:
"pedestrians are allowed to cross the road where it is safe to do so"
"it is illegal to cross the road within 15metres of a crossing"-use the crossing.


off out now and not a red light to be broke.(I will be in my car)
Karma

Tomas_V

Hagar wrote: »

It may seem extreme, but law breakers are criminals.

Only if they commit a criminal offence and are convicted in court for it. Is jay-walking or driving on a first provisional license a criminal offence? I don't think so. Murder and robbery are criminal offences.

Unless you agree that just about everyone is a criminal (since everyone breaks some law or other at some time). I think you should retract the slur.

opelmanta

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Niceonecyril.

nothin wrong with cyclin on a footpath if theres no one walkin on it...especially on a busy road where its very likely you wil get run down by some ignorant dimwit who shouldnt be let drive...i regularly cycle on limericks dock road and ennis road and dont know how im still alive...learn to use your inside mirrors people!! and cycle lanes are not for cars!!!

Hagar

Tomas_V wrote: »

Unless you agree that just about everyone is a criminal (since everyone breaks some law or other at some time). I think you should retract the slur.

If you commit a criminal act you are a criminal, if you are convicted you are a convicted criminal.
No slur, just an unpalatable truth.

blorg

Victor wrote: »

If you have a junction where 'left turn on red' (with yield to other traffic / pedestrians, etc.) is permitted for cyclists then quite a few cyclists can clear the junction and not be sitting in front of motorists or to the left of motorists wanting to turn left.

I find motorists get most pissed off when I stop on orange or refuse to break a filter red. These seem optional for motorists you know, in either direction- if there is a green in ANY direction, hell ignore the RED in any other!

blorg

Hagar wrote: »

So we are talking about amending the law to accommodate current law-breakers.

It may seem extreme, but law breakers are criminals.

It is extreme- have you ever crossed the road within 15m of a pedestrian crossing when that crossing was red?

FX Meister

yes

Hagar

blorg wrote: »

It is extreme- have you ever crossed the road within 15m of a pedestrian crossing when that crossing was red?

You guys are making this all too personal. My actions or yours are not at issue.

We are talking about the concept of changing a law to facilitate people who currently ignore the existing law while little or no effort is being made to enforce the law by the guardians of the law.

Tomas_V

Hagar wrote: »

If you commit a criminal act you are a criminal, if you are convicted you are a convicted criminal.No slur, just an unpalatable truth.

I'd disagree. A criminal offense is one for which there is a possibility of being tried in a criminal court and a potential jail term as punishment. Otherwise, a speeding ticket might be enough to prevent you getting a visa into USA.

But, let's assume you're right. I'm sure you must have parked illegally sometime, cycled on the path or dropped a sweet wrapper as a child? Then, you're a criminal & so am I. There's no point in mentioning it, so let's get back to changing the way freedom of movement is presently regulated and how it can be done more equitably.

How about a "national no traffic light & let's be nice to each other day"?

Hagar

Tomas_V wrote: »

How about a "national no traffic light & let's be nice to each other day"?

It will probably be as successful as "National Car-free Day".:(
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I understand your position and I understand it and I respect your right to hold it.
Perhaps I just march to the beat of a different drummer.

Tomas_V

Do you think the present laws are equitable?

Hagar

In that they apply to all road users equally, I think I must say yes.
Whether the laws should apply equally is another matter, open to debate I'd imagine.
In the meantime, "Should everybody obey the laws as they stand until they are reviewed?". I would say yes.
Will the revised new laws be observed and enforced as they should? I doubt it.

blorg

Hagar wrote: »

In that they apply to all road users equally, I think I must say yes.

Not the case though, current regulations are discriminatory against cyclists. Personally I would prefer all "cycle facilities" to be removed entirely and for us all to be considered equal vehicles on the road.

Hagar

blorg wrote: »

Not the case though, current regulations are discriminatory against cyclists.

Why?
Road signs say "Speed limit 80kmh" but you can't peddle that fast?
Road signs say "No parking" but you chain your bike to the sign?

Pick'n'mix works fine for sweeties in the Euro shop but not so well for the Rules of the Road.

blorg

I'm primarily referring to compulsory cycle lanes and the general idea they seem to have implanted with motorists that cyclists should not be on the road.

Experienced cyclists at least would be better off treated like any other traffic. I'm frequently harrassed for being in the correct lane to take a right turn, etc. Not holding anyone up either, I'm very considerate about that.

Personally I observe red lights although I can certainly see the argument for letting cyclists treat them as a yield for a left turn (motorists too for that matter, if they were going to be as careful and considerate as in north America.)

rp

blorg wrote: »

I'm primarily referring to compulsory cycle lanes and the general idea they seem to have implanted with motorists that cyclists should not be on the road.

It's the non-compulsory ones that are really anti-cycling: as a cyclist you must ride in one if provided, unless it's blocked by a stationary car or bus or something, but cars are free to drive in it if they wish - the non-compulsion seems to refer to motorised road users.
From the wording of the act, I'm not sure what you are supposed to do if a car is parked in a compulsory cycle lane: you may not leave the lane - do you have to wait for the authorities to move it? Or get off and push around it (on the road if no pavement)?

Experienced cyclists at least would be better off treated like any other traffic. I'm frequently harrassed for being in the correct lane to take a right turn, etc. Not holding anyone up either, I'm very considerate about that.

If only the motorised breathren were so considerate: coming in to work today a truck kept overtaking me an then holding me up, until eventually I passed it, and never saw it again (my average commute speed is 2x that of motor traffic in Dublin)

Personally I observe red lights although I can certainly see the argument for letting cyclists treat them as a yield for a left turn (motorists too for that matter, if they were going to be as careful and considerate as in north America.)

Same with cycling against traffic on one-way streets: legal & safe in Germany and other continental countries, arbitarily illegal here.

DITTKD

Edit.

Nevermind.

John Mason

i just noticed this thread, being a car driver, i just assumed that red lights, yield, right of way signs and yellow boxes didnt actual apply to cyclists.

i just assumed cyclist were given their own rules of the roads.

i am going to kill someone one day because of these seperate rules for cyclists, i think the rules of the road should be changed, so everyone including cyclists have abide by the aforementioned signs/lights:mad:

rp

irishbird wrote: »

i am going to kill someone one day because of these seperate rules for cyclists, i think the rules of the road should be changed, so everyone including cyclists have abide by the aforementioned signs/lights:mad:

yeah great idea: and while we are at it, why not make it so car drivers have to obey the rules of the road too? You know, make them pass tests and stuff, abide by speed limits, pass bikes at a safe distance, don't cut back in dangerously.
Fair enough, stick it to the cyclist first cuz of the huge carnage they are causing - after all, when was the last time a car driver killed someone?

John Mason

thats not fair, i follow the rules (i also cycle), as a walker i have been hit by a bike because apparently the red stop sign and the green man didnt apply to them, this person then started screaming at me !!!

cyclist without reflective gear or lights on country road is another thing. i just feel most cyclist in dublin seem to think they have the right away above everything else and it is always the drivers fault if you hit someone, i have had so many near accidents with cyclists not obeying lights and yellow boxs

some time its not the drivers fauth

DITTKD

I have to say, this thread tests my patience.

I’d really like to hear a rational argument against re-thinking traffic laws. It’s been six pages now. There’s only been one, which was made by a cyclist.

The one decent point made was that the status quo works ok for cyclists. As in, guards ignore them by and large.
That’s probably true but, guards are people too, and they can be as silly as anyone else. I don’t think it’s good for anyone to be at the mercy of their whims. And on a larger scale, it can lead to very bad things.

blorg

irishbird wrote: »

thats not fair, i follow the rules (i also cycle), as a walker i have been hit by a bike because apparently the red stop sign and the green man didnt apply to them, this person then started screaming at me !!!

I think just about any cyclist posting here - whatever their view on breaking red lights - will concur that if a cyclist *causes an accident* through breaking a light, yield sign, stop sign, etc. they are most definately at fault.

cyclist without reflective gear or lights on country road is another thing.

Agreed, they are a danger to other cyclists too. There are plenty of threads here about lighting and it is generally seen as highly irresponsible not to have it.

i just feel most cyclist in dublin seem to think they have the right away above everything else and it is always the drivers fault if you hit someone, i have had so many near accidents with cyclists not obeying lights and yellow boxs ... some time its not the drivers fauth

Of course it's not always the driver's fault; I've been in accidents myself where I was at fault, apologised profusely and paid for the damage. Motorists DO however have a greater inherent capacity to cause injury (due to speed and mass.)

On the flip side there are a fair few motorists who seem to be of the opinion that a cyclist NEVER has right of way. There is not so much red light breaking but plenty of breaking yield/stop signs, driving across cycle lanes, dangerous overtaking when a cyclist is turning right, etc.

This minority of drivers seem to be divided into two camps: one has an irrational hatred of cyclists and believe that they should be off the road full stop. The other is just simply inattentive or something, and just honestly seems to think a cyclist should always yield. One person acknowledged I had right of way but pointed out that if we collided I'd be dead while she would just have a scrape on her car. True story.

maratonass

irishbird wrote: »

i just noticed this thread, being a car driver, i just assumed that red lights, yield, right of way signs and yellow boxes didnt actual apply to cyclists. i just assumed cyclist were given their own rules of the roads.

i am going to kill someone one day because of these seperate rules for cyclists, i think the rules of the road should be changed, so everyone including cyclists have abide by the aforementioned signs/lights:mad:

This posting is totally disingenuous.

I think it's a tribute to the quality of debate in the 'Cycling Forum' that generalised abuse, crude saracasm like this and accusations of criminality (in another post) are met with calm, rational logic.

This kind of posting would probably not be tolerated in other forums. But it's a test of self-belief of cyclists that they can respond coolly to 'forum-rage' like this.

My respect gentelemen!

Hagar

What makes you think that the post was disingenuous?

As for accusations of criminality being met with calm rational logic, substitute the word denial and you're getting closer. Crime is crime, like it or not. Most criminals don't perceive themselves as lawbreakers, they think they are above the law, that it doesn't apply to them.

If you are going to ignore the rules of the road just because you don't like them you will be hosed off a road real soon. I hope it doesn't happen but judging by your apparent disrespect for the laws that the rest of us observe it's going to.

maratonass

Hagar wrote: »

What makes you think that the post was disingenuous?

We all know that the same regulations apply to cyclists and motorists.

Hagar wrote: »

Crime is crime, like it or not.

Indeed it is, but you don't seem to know what a crime is. You're accusing people of committing criminal offences when the offences you are referring to are not criminal offences.

Hagar wrote: »

I hope it doesn't happen but judging by your apparent disrespect for the laws that the rest of us observe it's going to.

Give an example where I've demonstrated a disrespect for the law?

Hagar

maratonass wrote: »

Give an example where I've demonstrated a disrespect for the law?

In your vast repetoire of 7 posts?
On the other hand if we knew the username you normally post under...