Should cyclists run red lights?

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

I have been on the receiving end of a few rants, while commuting and on training spins, which were peppered with phrases like "you cyclists ignore all the rules and yet you expect us drivers to adhere to them" - except such phrases were uttered with less coherence and with a lot more spittle and throbbing veins in the forehead of the ranter. On occasion this has been accompanied by the car veering towards me as the driver felt the need to impress upon me the extent of their feelings on the matter.

I live and cycle in Dublin, I clock up about 5000km/year, yet I don't encounter such behaviour, something you are doing is setting them off. No causal relation with breaking traffic rules, perfectly legitimate behaviour can cause the sort of thing your describe.

Fundamentally, I believe that breaking a red light is stupid because of the danger that is poses to other road users

Others in this thread have comprehensively shown that breaking lights and danger are two independent properties which are not causally linked. I see no point continueing to argue against what appears to be a religous belief.

doozerie

Membrane wrote: »

I live and cycle in Dublin, I clock up about 5000km/year, yet I don't encounter such behaviour, something you are doing is setting them off. No causal relation with breaking traffic rules, perfectly legitimate behaviour can cause the sort of thing your describe.

Those are very definitive, and not a little condescending, comments. I'm sure that the fact that they are wrong won't deter you from holding them as gospel truth.

Membrane wrote:

Others in this thread have comprehensively shown that breaking lights and danger are two independent properties which are not causally linked.

Which thread have you been reading? I've been reading this one, and this statement of yours is clearly untrue.

Membrane wrote:

I see no point continueing to argue against what appears to be a religous belief.

I've found religion at last? I'm sure my parents will be pleased.

littlejukka

Membrane wrote: »

I live and cycle in Dublin, I clock up about 5000km/year, yet I don't encounter such behaviour, something you are doing is setting them off. No causal relation with breaking traffic rules, perfectly legitimate behaviour can cause the sort of thing your describe.

i was cycling home yesterday evening in a marked bike lane with the full kit, red surface, continuous white lines, nothing to confuse the onlookr as to the function of the lane. beside this lane (on my right) is a bus lane, again it's clearly marked with a continuous white line and "BUS LANE" on it. suddenly there's a beeping behind me and i find a guy in a RAV4 beeping at me, swearing and gesticulatin wildly for me to move out of his way as the bus lane seemingly wasn't wide enough for him and he needed my lane to get past the line of traffic on his right.

is this reasonable? i have had countless similar tales of such reactions when i'm cycling in a perfectly reasonable manner.

Membrane

littlejukka wrote: »

i was cycling home yesterday evening in a marked bike lane with the full kit, red surface, continuous white lines, nothing to confuse the onlookr as to the function of the lane. beside this lane (on my right) is a bus lane, again it's clearly marked with a continuous white line and "BUS LANE" on it. suddenly there's a beeping behind me and i find a guy in a RAV4 beeping at me, swearing and gesticulatin wildly for me to move out of his way as the bus lane seemingly wasn't wide enough for him and he needed my lane to get past the line of traffic on his right.

is this reasonable? i have had countless similar tales of such reactions when i'm cycling in a perfectly reasonable manner.

I see no relation between what I wrote and your response, what do you expect me to respond to?

rubadub

Membrane wrote: »

I live and cycle in Dublin, I clock up about 5000km/year, yet I don't encounter such behaviour, something you are doing is setting them off. No causal relation with breaking traffic rules, perfectly legitimate behaviour can cause the sort of thing your describe.

This is a very good point, if I was to obey the law I expect I would irritate far more drivers. I see many cyclists obeying the law and think motorists must despise their actions, some appear to be flouting their legality, rubbing peoples nose in it.

Fundamentally, I believe that breaking a red light is stupid because of the danger that is poses to other road users

When I break the law it is usually for my own safety, usually to avoid motorists, this usually gives motorists more room to pass or take off etc as I have mentioned before explaining a few instances. This also lessens the danger to other road users, I am off the road or in advance of motorists, if they did hit me or stop suddenly a car could back into them.

I illegally cycle on an empty footpath, or I legally cycle dead centre on a road at a slow pace, I know which will upset the majority of motorists more.

Membrane

rubadub wrote: »

I illegally cycle on an empty footpath, or I legally cycle dead centre on a road at a slow pace, I know which will upset the majority of motorists more.

Exactly. Sadly I sometimes see cyclists on the road who seem to have some axe to grind with motorists, or they insist on asserting their rights for example by pontifically positioning themselves in the middle of a lane when there is no need to do so for safety reasons (which of course there can be). This is an example of perfectly legal behaviour by the cyclist that can result in getting shouted at.

Unless my safety requires me to be in the way of a motorist, I try and assist them to make good progress. For me this has been the key in reducing the number of times that I get shouted at, it is now an exeption. I can't remember ever having been maliciously cut up or something like that (although it happens regularly for other reasons).

blorg

Membrane wrote: »

pontifically positioning themselves in the middle of a lane when there is no need to do so for safety reasons

Technically you are meant to keep as far left as is safe to do so, so cycling in the middle of a lane without reason is not necessarily legal. Of course as you say there may be good reasons (door zone, lack of room for safe overtaking, about to turn right, etc.)

rp

littlejukka wrote: »

...suddenly there's a beeping behind me and i find a guy in a RAV4 beeping at me ... as the bus lane seemingly wasn't wide enough for him
is this reasonable?

Perfectly reasonable behaviour;): when you've got a big car like, you can't be expected to be able to judge how wide it is, so you need to take all the space available, and it's such a big yoke, you can be excused for thinking you're driving a bus.

Membrane

blorg wrote: »

Technically you are meant to keep as far left as is safe to do so, so cycling in the middle of a lane without reason is not necessarily legal.

You are correct, afaik that is still part of Irish traffic laws. Motorcycle instructors have complained for years that they have to teach people going for their test to position themselves left in a lane, where they teach people not to do that (not as a rule anyway) for post driving test advanced motorcycle courses.

The practice for cyclists to by default position themselves in the middle of the lane (aka the primary position) is something that is advocated by the influential "Cyclecraft" book. Personally I disagree with that practice for the reason that adopting it as the default position causes too much conflict with motorists. But being in primary is certainly something that every cyclist should be aware of and capable of, as it is a vital survival technique that IMO every cyclist needs to employ in certain situations.

blorg

Personally I do tend to adopt the primary position by default on many roads, but I make sure to pull over if I see a motorist and it is safe for them to overtake.

Membrane

blorg wrote: »

Personally I do tend to adopt the primary position by default on many roads, but I make sure to pull over if I see a motorist and it is safe for them to overtake.

I have no arguments against people using the primary position, even most of the time. But I don't support the Cyclecraft advice that every cyclist should use the primary position under all circumstances bar a few exeptions.

An advanced motorcycle book that is widely considered as the benchmark ("Motorcycle Roadcraft: The Police Rider's Handbook") abstains from recommending a default road position, nor does it give a "if this, then do this" list. Instead it explains the many variables involved with choosing a road position and then lets people decide what applies to a given situation. I favour cyclists doing the same, learn the many variables related to road positioning and then decide what works for you.

doozerie

rubadub wrote: »

This is a very good point, if I was to obey the law I expect I would irritate far more drivers. I see many cyclists obeying the law and think motorists must despise their actions, some appear to be flouting their legality, rubbing peoples nose in it.

Cyclists obeying the law are a hazard and some only obey the law in order to annoy others? That is a very bizarre, and illogical, point of view.

littlejukka

Membrane wrote: »

I see no relation between what I wrote and your response, what do you expect me to respond to?

i'd rather you didn't respond at all when you have nothing to contribute.

jaycummins

this is how it should be: pedestrians are allowed to cross at a green pedestian light. they are NOT allowed cross at a red pedestrian light, but they are not expected to wait for five minutes at a red ped light when there ar no cars coming. technically a pedestrian shouldn't cross the road at a red ped light but he can. if he causes an accident while doing so it is his fault so he has to be careful when doing so because HE alone is resposible for any accidents.

THE SAME should apply for cyclists. if the light is red and there are no cars coming, the cyclists should not break the light BUT he is not expected to wait for the lights to go green.

a cyclist shoudl be allowed to break red lights but should do so in a very careful manner. he should be prosecuted for anyaccidents he causes when doing so.

so by law, a cyclist/pedestrian is not allowed cross at a red light, but they should only get in trouble if the cause an accident. it sounds stupid but its the best way to do it.

pedestrians can sometimes piss me off. i crashed into some chinese girl on parnel street who walked out into the road without even looking. she assumed nobody was coming because there was a line of traffic. annoying thing was, i slightly buckled one of my wheels and cut my knee open then she asked me was i okay and i sed 'yes'. when i got up she had dissapeared as if nothing had happened.

bitch. i had get the bike fixed myself, not to mention limping for a few days.

opelmanta

jaycummins wrote: »

this is how it should be: pedestrians are allowed to cross at a green pedestian light. they are NOT allowed cross at a red pedestrian light, but they are not expected to wait for five minutes at a red ped light when there ar no cars coming. technically a pedestrian shouldn't cross the road at a red ped light but he can. if he causes an accident while doing so it is his fault so he has to be careful when doing so because HE alone is resposible for any accidents.

THE SAME should apply for cyclists. if the light is red and there are no cars coming, the cyclists should not break the light BUT he is not expected to wait for the lights to go green.

a cyclist shoudl be allowed to break red lights but should do so in a very careful manner. he should be prosecuted for anyaccidents he causes when doing so.

so by law, a cyclist/pedestrian is not allowed cross at a red light, but they should only get in trouble if the cause an accident. it sounds stupid but its the best way to do it.

pedestrians can sometimes piss me off. i crashed into some chinese girl on parnel street who walked out into the road without even looking. she assumed nobody was coming because there was a line of traffic. annoying thing was, i slightly buckled one of my wheels and cut my knee open then she asked me was i okay and i sed 'yes'. when i got up she had dissapeared as if nothing had happened.

bitch. i had get the bike fixed myself, not to mention limping for a few days.

so in simpler terms cyclists/pedestrians should just ignore the lights completely and use their common sense(which a lot of people lack) and cross when ever they THINK it is safe to do so

copacetic

jaycummins wrote: »

technically a pedestrian shouldn't cross the road at a red ped light but he can. if he causes an accident while doing so it is his fault so he has to be careful when doing so because HE alone is resposible for any accidents.

that's not true.

rubadub

doozerie wrote: »

Cyclists obeying the law are a hazard and some only obey the law in order to annoy others? That is a very bizarre, and illogical, point of view.

Well a few posters after seemed to think so too, did you think what they posted was bizarre & illogical too. This behaviour has been mentioned in other threads too.

You seem to have a habit of posting like you are in a courtroom, trying to point out logical or technical flaws to make posts appear "technically" wrong, and mock them. While everybody else seems to know exactly what is being said and are not as apparently confused as you. Are you a lawyer? you might have missed your calling....

blorg

copacetic wrote: »

that's not true.

he did prefix it with "this is how it should be:"

Personally, I agree, it's not that simple, if you deliberately mow down a pedestrian crossing on a red when you could have stopped you are liable, not the poor pedestrian. This specific behaviour I reckon I see more from cyclists than motorists incidentally- top of Grafton Street for example (particularly cyclists of the courier persuasion.)

Cabaal

blorg wrote: »

he did prefix it with "this is how it should be:"

Personally, I agree, it's not that simple, if you deliberately mow down a pedestrian crossing on a red when you could have stopped you are liable, not the poor pedestrian. This specific behaviour I reckon I see more from cyclists than motorists incidentally- top of Grafton Street for example (particularly cyclists of the courier persuasion.)

its not how it should be its just how the poster would like it, at the end of the day motorists drive around in tin cans which are large, travel at speed and weight 1 tonne or more and as such are a massive risk to anything smaller.

Your basically driving around in a weapon and if you are involved in a accident that that vast majority of the time you are responsible because its clear your not able to properly control it.

blorg

Sure, no disagreement there. With great power comes great responsibility...

doozerie

rubadub wrote:

Well a few posters after seemed to think so too, did you think what they posted was bizarre & illogical too. This behaviour has been mentioned in other threads too.

Which other posts agreed that cyclists obeying the law are a hazard?

rubadub wrote:

You seem to have a habit of posting like you are in a courtroom, trying to point out logical or technical flaws to make posts appear "technically" wrong, and mock them. While everybody else seems to know exactly what is being said and are not as apparently confused as you. Are you a lawyer? you might have missed your calling....

Given the extremely negative opinions that you have expressed about the gardai, I can only presume that you have a similarly dim view of lawyers. If it makes you feel any better to dismiss me as a lawyer because I disagree with your views on cycling within the law, then go right ahead. It doesn't make your statement, that cyclists obeying the law are a hazard, any less ridiculous though.