Should cyclists run red lights?

maratonass

Hagar wrote: »

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

Everyone has to start somewhere. But I suppose it mist be part of the 'Viking' persona to always be on the attack and to swing the battleaxe around mindlessly.

For someone who has such a fascination with criminality, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of providing evidence in support of an accusation.

Breaking traffic lights is not a crime, it's a breach of road traffic regulations.

Postings like yours (high on accusation, low on fact) are just the kind of provocation that I was referring to when I admired the restraint shown by the cyclists.

Hagar

maratonass wrote: »

I think the current law forcing runners to use foootpaths is wrong. It's a fundamental right, we should be able to run where we like.

There you go, advocating that runners have rights that are above the law, effectively urging people to break existing laws because you say it's ok.

Your attempt to split lawlessness into grades as a means of denial that any offence has taken place is a very poor argument.

maratonass

I asserted freedom of movement as a fundamental right. Asserting rights and complaining about restrictions on them is not illegal. Perhaps it's different in Middle Earth.

Your attempt to place people who run amber lights into the same category as child molestors is not an effective way to be believed. Are you deliberatley trying to provoke people?

If you cannot prove that breaching the traffic light regulations is criminal, then stop saying so and admit it was a mistake. Until then, I will have more respect for the postings by the cyclists.

Hagar

Are you stamping your little feet as you type? :D:D

shapez

Hi Folks,

Everyone forgot about the people riding horses!!! They CAN actually stop traffic, no matter what is on the road!! And they have priorty in some cases on the road too!!

I do believe the government is (well making an attempt) promoting cycling here in Ireland. Maybe things might go in favor of cyclist then.

rubadub

shapez wrote: »

I do believe the government is (well making an attempt) promoting cycling here in Ireland. Maybe things might go in favor of cyclist then.

Their "attempts" so far have done nothing but annoy both cyclists AND motorists. The cyclists are legally obliged to cycle on poorly designed and dangerous tracks- therefore many do not cycle on them for fear of their own safety. Then some motorists go mental at all the wasted money on "perfectly good" cycletracks not being used, by "bloody cyclists who dont even pay road tax", oblivious to the fact that road tax is a drop in the ocean as to what roads cost, and all PAYE workers are paying their share for these useless cycletracks.

Most policiticans are not cycling to the dail so probably are patting each other on the back for the great promotion of cycling they are doing, and cannot understand why cyclists still refuse to use them, so call for more laws to force them to.

Hagar

rubadub wrote: »

"bloody cyclists who dont even pay road tax", oblivious to the fact that road tax is a drop in the ocean as to what roads cost, and all PAYE workers are paying their share for these useless cycletracks.

Don't forget the contribution motorists make to the Exchequer through VRT plus VAT on the VRT, punitive fuel taxes plus VAT on the punitive fuels tax, VAT on motor insuance, driving licences, VAT on driving lessons, VAT on Tolls. Then add the Road Tax. I'm sure there may be more but I think you will find the motorist actually contributes more than is spent on the roads.

finkaboutit555

As a motorist, Who does a fair bit of cycling too.

I hate to see other cyclists runninng red lights.

If I accidently hit the cyclist When they break the red light Whos fault is it??
Probably mine since I'm incontrol of the car!

I have hit a cyclist before In Dundrum (Just under the Luas Bridge if coming from rathfarnham direction,Under the bridge the road splits into three Right to go to the town centre straight to get ot the N11 and Left towards milltown) I had a green light on my approach to the junction (there was no other cars in front of me) and out of the corner of my eye I saw the cyclist breaked just in time,Slowed down just enough that he crossed me,But I still hit with my left wing on his back tyre..Thankfully he was OK. But had it been worse Where would I stand...?
As I said I do fair bit of cycling,So I know What its like for motorists.
I stop at lights, stay in to the side of the road etc..IT's not that hard to do...

rp

Hagar wrote: »

Don't forget the contribution motorists make to the Exchequer through VRT plus VAT on the VRT, punitive fuel taxes plus VAT on the punitive fuels tax, VAT on motor insuance, driving licences, VAT on driving lessons, VAT on Tolls. Then add the Road Tax. I'm sure there may be more but I think you will find the motorist actually contributes more than is spent on the roads.

It'd be good if someone would do a definitive study here. Spending on the roads themselves is a small part of it: there's the Guards, Emergency services and hospital capacity to factor in, there's time lost to business through delays & accidents, and apparently, each fatality on the roads costs 1,000,000 euros in coroners, clean-up and admin.

Numerous studies (e.g., America's Autos on Welfare) in the US talk of a 'motoring deficit' - that is, the shortfall between the the cost to the state of providing the road infrastructure, and the income from motorists. I've seen similar figures for continental Europe (not as extreme ia the US 2x figures, but then tax in of fuel is higher in Europe).

But the real cost of motoring isn't measured in bucks: how do you put a price on the human misery reported every day in the papers - hit & runs, multiple pile-ups, I'm sick of reading about them. Not to mention lesser ills, like the effect of VOCs on child passengers, the sheer vandalism wrought by traffic in our towns an cities, making them unpleasant to live in.

But we're lucky, our friends in the UK & US are happy to wage a war to keep the gas flowing for us. It's a small matter to let the lads stop of in Shannon.

Ghost Rider

Well said. The big picture is crucial here. I could concede that motorists might well spend more on their various taxes than is spent on the roads. But that is only because the cost of the roads themselves is probably a tiny fraction of the total cost of a car culture like ours.

In other words, motorists should feel uniquely privileged that they haven't yet been made to cough up anything close to a fair tax. I suspect their day will come, however.

rp wrote: »

It'd be good if someone would do a definitive study here. Spending on the roads themselves is a small part of it: there's the Guards, Emergency services and hospital capacity to factor in, there's time lost to business through delays & accidents, and apparently, each fatality on the roads costs 1,000,000 euros in coroners, clean-up and admin.

Numerous studies (e.g., America's Autos on Welfare) in the US talk of a 'motoring deficit' - that is, the shortfall between the the cost to the state of providing the road infrastructure, and the income from motorists. I've seen similar figures for continental Europe (not as extreme ia the US 2x figures, but then tax in of fuel is higher in Europe).

But the real cost of motoring isn't measured in bucks: how do you put a price on the human misery reported every day in the papers - hit & runs, multiple pile-ups, I'm sick of reading about them. Not to mention lesser ills, like the effect of VOCs on child passengers, the sheer vandalism wrought by traffic in our towns an cities, making them unpleasant to live in.

But we're lucky, our friends in the UK & US are happy to wage a war to keep the gas flowing for us. It's a small matter to let the lads stop of in Shannon.

Mucco

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Well said. The big picture is crucial here. I could concede that motorists might well spend more on their various taxes than is spent on the roads. But that is only because the cost of the roads themselves is probably a tiny fraction of the total cost of a car culture like ours.

In other words, motorists should feel uniquely privileged that they haven't yet been made to cough up anything close to a fair tax. I suspect their day will come, however.

Whitelegg did a study in the UK, it's a bit dated now (1992), but showed that motorists are subsidised to the tune of £1000 per annum.

M

Ghost Rider

That's interesting. I wonder has the figure gone up or down since then...

Mucco wrote: »

Whitelegg did a study in the UK, it's a bit dated now (1992), but showed that motorists are subsidised to the tune of £1000 per annum.

M

DITTKD

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Well said. The big picture is crucial here. I could concede that motorists might well spend more on their various taxes than is spent on the roads. But that is only because the cost of the roads themselves is probably a tiny fraction of the total cost of a car culture like ours.

In other words, motorists should feel uniquely privileged that they haven't yet been made to cough up anything close to a fair tax. I suspect their day will come, however.

rp wrote: »

It'd be good if someone would do a definitive study here. Spending on the roads themselves is a small part of it: there's the Guards, Emergency services and hospital capacity to factor in, there's time lost to business through delays & accidents, and apparently, each fatality on the roads costs 1,000,000 euros in coroners, clean-up and admin.

Numerous studies (e.g., America's Autos on Welfare) in the US talk of a 'motoring deficit' - that is, the shortfall between the the cost to the state of providing the road infrastructure, and the income from motorists. I've seen similar figures for continental Europe (not as extreme ia the US 2x figures, but then tax in of fuel is higher in Europe).

But the real cost of motoring isn't measured in bucks: how do you put a price on the human misery reported every day in the papers - hit & runs, multiple pile-ups, I'm sick of reading about them. Not to mention lesser ills, like the effect of VOCs on child passengers, the sheer vandalism wrought by traffic in our towns an cities, making them unpleasant to live in.

But we're lucky, our friends in the UK & US are happy to wage a war to keep the gas flowing for us. It's a small matter to let the lads stop of in Shannon.

These are the sorts of points that most of y’all seem to be missing.
People here are making points (or just plain having a rant) based on little more than what happened to them this morning, in the car, between their home and their job.
Think of the big picture. Please.

shapez

MOve to Amsterdam. Cyclist have right of way everywhere here!! And have the best roads to cycle on!!! Beautiful city too.

unionman

shapez wrote: »

MOve to Amsterdam. Cyclist have right of way everywhere here!! And have the best roads to cycle on!!! Beautiful city too.

Yes, but Holland clocks up something like 200+ cyclist fatalities pa.

unionman

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Well said. The big picture is crucial here. I could concede that motorists might well spend more on their various taxes than is spent on the roads. But that is only because the cost of the roads themselves is probably a tiny fraction of the total cost of a car culture like ours.

In other words, motorists should feel uniquely privileged that they haven't yet been made to cough up anything close to a fair tax. I suspect their day will come, however.

Not alone that, but you have to consider the impact of the car on the road - the cumulative use of one car in a driver's lifetime means that wear and tear, and the requirement for more roads, are a by-product of car usage.

I am a motorist myself, and I reckon tax-wise, it's a relative bargain! Not a popular thing to say, but car tax should be increased, and the extra revenue pumped in to alternative means of transport (including incentives to cycle).

I fear my idealism on that score is way beyond what any policy maker is prepared to do. The motoring industry, and the vast numbers of car owners, have the capacity to scare the you-know-what out of any public official willing to implement a more progressive approach.

And so I'm not off-topic; running red lights - yes, if sound judgement is employed and all road users know the score. I observe the lights myself as I would when driving the car, as much as anything to make it clear to drivers that I am a responsible road user. Serial light breakers are grist to the mill of motorists who regard cyclists as a nuisance.

rubadub

unionman wrote: »

Not a popular thing to say, but car tax should be increased,

It is unusual. Also the motorist who do have the "cyclist pay no tax" mentality must think it is still think the cost of a car is fine, otherwise they would cycle too, and a lot of them seem to think cyclists have it easy, what with the "perfectly good" cycletracks and all.

Another factor not included is the cost of obesity/health incurred due to lack of exercise, loss in workhours and hospital costs etc.

People these days have a snobbish attitude to "functional exercise", not walking places, paying people to clean their house, do gardening etc, yet will pay a fortune in gyms for the privelege of expending energy! Some people with cars think they cost so much that they would be losing out money if it was not used everyday. A girl in my work drives everyday only really to work, we worked it out and it would have been cheaper to get taxied around all year.

Motorists seem to object to cyclists more than pedestrians for some reason, I think because most are pedestrians too. So it would be rare for people to moan about how pedestrians pay no road tax towards zebra & pedestrian crossings, flyovers, paths etc. Maybe it is since so many illegally drive and park on cycletracks & cyclelanes that they consider them to be "the road" in all cases.

unionman

rubadub wrote: »

A girl in my work drives everyday only really to work, we worked it out and it would have been cheaper to get taxied around all year.

I fear if I did the sums I might come up with a similar result for myself! I can only justify it on the grounds that I have two young kids to get around the place. Car journeys by myself I keep to an absolute minimum, but the reality is it costs money whether I use it or not.

Eventually it will have to go.:o

rp

unionman wrote: »

Yes, but Holland clocks up something like 200+ cyclist fatalities pa.

One death for every 73 million km cycled? Something we should aspire to.

doozerie

The existing rules of the road state that red lights should not be broken, yet people (cyclists, drivers, etc.) frequently disregard this, putting others at risk in doing so. This is clearly a problem due to the danger it creates.

There is a strong vein of support in this thread for a modification of the existing rules to allow cyclists to break a red light "under certain circumstances". There are no strong arguments that this is to create greater safety for anyone, so this is simply an approach aimed at causing less delay to cyclists. Also, the "under certain circumstances" bit is quite vague and without this being tightly defined by any new rule it will be wide open to being abused. And judging by the tone of several posts here, there would be strong opposition to any new rule being tightly defined.

So, it seems to me that we'd end up with a new law that would be abused as much, if not more, than the existing law relating to red traffic lights. So, I can't see the point of any such new law myself. And I say that as a cyclist who encounters over 30 sets of traffic lights each way on my daily commute - if I get pissed off about being delayed by lights, as I sometimes do, I remind myself that I could have left a few minutes earlier, and that regardless of any delay I am experiencing I still prefer cycling my bike to being parked in my car in slow moving traffic, and suddenly my brief delay seems less of an issue.

Of course, if the current laws were actually enforced, which would probably involve daily fines being incurred by quite a few of the commuting cyclists that I see each day (it is invariably the same people that you see abuse the rules of the road on a daily basis), then the current situation would probably improve significantly. No doubt I'll be labelled as some kind of fascist by some though, for suggesting that people who knowingly break the existing rules (and one of the very sensible rules at that, in this case) should bear responsibility for their actions.

Ghost Rider

I'm afraid I don't have time to argue against all of your points but the one below sticks out...

Safety is only one consideration in the regulation of road use. Another major one is traffic flow.

doozerie wrote: »

There is a strong vein of support in this thread for a modification of the existing rules to allow cyclists to break a red light "under certain circumstances". There are no strong arguments that this is to create greater safety for anyone, so this is simply an approach aimed at causing less delay to cyclists. .

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Safety is only one consideration in the regulation of road use. Another major one is traffic flow.

One of the main objectives of traffic lights is to facilitate the flow of traffic (for all road users). Without traffic lights, people approaching junctions from secondary routes will be sitting there for a long time while waiting to cross/join traffic on the main route.

Ghost Rider

Only people in cars.

doozerie wrote: »

Without traffic lights, people approaching junctions from secondary routes will be sitting there for a long time while waiting to cross/join traffic on the main route.

DITTKD

doozerie wrote: »

One of the main objectives of traffic lights is to facilitate the flow of traffic (for all road users). Without traffic lights, people approaching junctions from secondary routes will be sitting there for a long time while waiting to cross/join traffic on the main route.

Traffic lights, as someone said earlier, force people to do something they should be doing naturally, i.e. be considerate.

In Dublin’s case it regulates traffic flow so that all the cars can fit on the road, because quite simply, there are too many cars on the road. The traffic lights are another symptom of the unimaginative, reactive attitude to city planning that’s commented on in this forum practically every day.

By the by, go to any town or city outside of Dublin (this thread is very Dublin-centric) and you’ll see everyone get’s along fine with very few lights. Was with a friend from Dublin but who lives in Waterford the other week and he pointed out this very fact, in Waterford people let each other out at junctions and everything works grand.

doozerie

DITTKD wrote: »

Traffic lights, as someone said earlier, force people to do something they should be doing naturally, i.e. be considerate.

In Dublin’s case it regulates traffic flow so that all the cars can fit on the road, because quite simply, there are too many cars on the road. The traffic lights are another symptom of the unimaginative, reactive attitude to city planning that’s commented on in this forum practically every day.

By the by, go to any town or city outside of Dublin (this thread is very Dublin-centric) and you’ll see everyone get’s along fine with very few lights. Was with a friend from Dublin but who lives in Waterford the other week and he pointed out this very fact, in Waterford people let each other out at junctions and everything works grand.

I think it is already established that the number of inconsiderate road users is significantly large that anything that relies entirely on them being considerate to others out of the goodness of their hearts is doomed to failure, and probably carnage. If all of the traffic lights in Dublin were to be removed tomorrow, then any improvement in traffic flow would be negated by mayhem caused by the army of ambulances and garda vehicles attending the numerous "accidents" that would result.

We are not the friendliest or considerate of species. What laws we do have are often ignored by us when they are an inconvenience. Do we really need to introduce more grey areas into one of the more sensible laws (i.e. red light = stop) that already exist?

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Only people in cars.

Yup, the people in anything less intimidating than a ton of metal will be scraping each other off the road with a paint scraper, which would put a bit of a damper on the daily commute.

Ghost Rider

You missed my point. Traffic lights only help manage the traffic flow for those vehicles that create the traffic problems in the first place i.e. motorised vehicles. When it comes to cyclists, they actually restrict the flow.

doozerie wrote: »

Yup, the people in anything less intimidating than a ton of metal will be scraping each other off the road with a paint scraper, which would put a bit of a damper on the daily commute.

doozerie

Ghost Rider wrote: »

You missed my point. Traffic lights only help manage the traffic flow for those vehicles that create the traffic problems in the first place i.e. motorised vehicles. When it comes to cyclists, they actually restrict the flow.

I didn't miss your point, I disagreed with it completely.

DITTKD

doozerie wrote: »

I think it is already established that the number of inconsiderate road users is significantly large that anything that relies entirely on them being considerate to others out of the goodness of their hearts is doomed to failure, and probably carnage. If all of the traffic lights in Dublin were to be removed tomorrow, then any improvement in traffic flow would be negated by mayhem caused by the army of ambulances and garda vehicles attending the numerous "accidents" that would result.

We are not the friendliest or considerate of species. What laws we do have are often ignored by us when they are an inconvenience. Do we really need to introduce more grey areas into one of the more sensible laws (i.e. red light = stop) that already exist?

Dude, I’m not saying lights don’t have their place in the current set up. They certainly do.

What I am saying is that the current set-up, at least as far as Dublin and city’s like it are concerned, is completely arse about face. The car-centric attitude of the general public and the powers that be are not only detrimental to the needs of cyclists, but also to the needs of motorists, pedestrians and public transport users. That is to say, it’s crap for everyone. It needs to be completely reworked.

Yes it’s a big idealist view, I think that’s what’s needed, I think it's doable if people changed their attitudes, and there was a little more cop on put into infrastructural planning.

doozerie

DITTKD wrote:

What I am saying is that the current set-up, at least as far as Dublin and city’s like it are concerned, is completely arse about face. The car-centric attitude of the general public and the powers that be are not only detrimental to the needs of cyclists, but also to the needs of motorists, pedestrians and public transport users. That is to say, it’s crap for everyone. It needs to be completely reworked.

I would agree with some of that. But I think the situation is not helped by cyclists who decide that the best way to deal with the current mess is to simply ignore some/all of the existing rules of the road - that just serves to compound the problem and further fuels the unconstructive "us versus them" attitude of many cyclists and many drivers.