"YOU NEED GLASSES!" says Mr Magoo

doozerie

I stopped at a red light at the junction of Dodder Road and Rathfarnham Road this morning, while just ahead of me a guy on a bike cycled straight through the junction/crossroads. There was a woman walking across Rathfarnham Road and as the guy on the bike cut her off he said something to her which he rounded off by yelling "YOU NEED GLASSES!" as he pointed at the green pedestrian light (which screamed right back at him "YOU ARE AN IDIOT!"). It was a particularly moronic moment which I suspect was completely lost on him.

If that guy happens to read this (he wore a blue coat, and a helmet, and I have seen him on that route quite often before), this is to let you know that you owe the pedestrian an apology. Any green traffic lights for bikes that you might see there apply to crossing only one road at the junction at a time, just like the green lights for pedestrians, they don't permit you to cycle clear through the junction thereby cutting through two sets of green pedestrian lights. Your choosing to ignore this fact makes your actions even more idiotic, not less.

If the pedestrian happens to read this, please don't take that guy as being representative of cyclists on that route, despite the number of people on bikes that behave in the very same way at that junction.

Not that I agree with the cyclist for breaking a red light, but the North - South part of that junction has, if I remember correctly, a green 'bicycle light' with the pedestrian light. I assume that you're meant to cycle across within the pedestrian crossing and rejoin the cycle lane on the other side (or dismount and rejoin!) so it is possible that he was pointing at that.

doozerie

Dónal wrote: »

Not that I agree with the cyclist for breaking a red light, but the North - South part of that junction has, if I remember correctly, a green 'bicycle light' with the pedestrian light. I assume that you're meant to cycle across within the pedestrian crossing and rejoin the cycle lane on the other side (or dismount and rejoin!) so it is possible that he was pointing at that.

He quite possibly was pointing at the green bicycle light, but right beside it is the green pedestrian light so you'd be hard pressed to see one and not the other. He decided he had priority, which he didn't.

Those bicycle lights apply to cyclists crossing one road only, not those going through the junction. Going through the junction means you cut across two sets of green pedestrian lights. Basically, those bicycle lights encourage cyclists to merge with pedestrians in crossing each road, which is a whole world of stupidity unto itself.

oflahero

Unnerving. I go that way every day, and this morning was wearing both a blue coat and a hemet, which I never have done before. No altercation with any pedestrians, however!

Doozerie is quite correct; in my view the 'green bike' gives you license to cross over the north-south part, but not to cut up pedestrians crossing at the far east-west part. Common sense says you can continue going, but should totally give way to any pedestrian traffic first.

Bunnyhopper

I'm not defending the actions of the cyclist and I'm not familiar with this junction but from the descriptions here it does sound like another victory for well-thought-out and legible design :rolleyes:

nomadic

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I'm not defending the actions of the cyclist and I'm not familiar with this junction but from the descriptions here it does sound like another victory for well-thought-out and legible design :rolleyes:

Exaclty, stupid set of lights. I can see where the conflict arises for an idiot on a bike who sees a green light for bikes.

Chips Lovell

Bad urban planning be damned. Having come across a few of those bike/pedestrian crossings I think you need to be a particular grade of moron to think that they entitle you to go across rather than through the lights.

doozerie

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I'm not defending the actions of the cyclist and I'm not familiar with this junction but from the descriptions here it does sound like another victory for well-thought-out and legible design :rolleyes:

The whole junction is a mess as regards design. The bicycle lights are an afterthought and are pointless at best, and encourage stupid behaviour at worst. Personally, I ignore the bike lights completely and just adhere to the same lights that traffic use - to me that is the only rational and safe thing to do. Unfortunately though, as was the case this morning, some cyclists use those lights as (groundless) justification for being complete idiots.

The junction would be made safer by the bike traffic lights being removed, in my view. It won't stop idiots being idiots, but it might at last make some of them stop and think twice.

Doctor Bob

Any chance you could clarify a couple of things? I'm not very familiar with the junction set up.

• Which direction was he coming from/going to? And was he going straight ahead or turning?
• And which direction were you coming from/going to?

Thanks!

doozerie

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Any chance you could clarify a couple of things? I'm not very familiar with the junction set up.

• Which direction was he coming from/going to? And was he going straight ahead or turning?
• And which direction were you coming from/going to?

Thanks!

We were both travelling South to North, so both going straight ahead. The junction is a crossroads with pedestrian+bicycle traffic lights on each of the four entry points to the junction.

blorg

Could you do up a diagram please

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

Could you do up a diagram please

Can you give me a few minutes? I've only just removed my trousers for Doctor Bob and he hasn't even asked me to cough yet.

Doctor Bob

I was going to, but the trouser removal told me all I need to know!

I suspect blorg's tongue was in his cheek, but I could sketch it up if required.

oflahero

doozerie wrote: »

We were both travelling South to North, so both going straight ahead. The junction is a crossroads with pedestrian+bicycle traffic lights on each of the four entry points to the junction.

Worse than that, there's no bike traffic lights on the crossing going north->south, only south->north, for some inexplicable reason.

This (rather roughly) is the offending junction. I'll be sailing through in about forty minutes and will report back on any entertaining bike/ped conflict.

doozerie

oflahero wrote: »

Worse than that, there's no bike traffic lights on the crossing going north->south, only south->north, for some inexplicable reason.

You are right. I had a closer look at the position of the bike traffic lights this evening on the way through and as you say there is one set on the west side of the junction for crossing south<->north and another set on the north side of the junction for crossing west<->east. So two sides of the junction have bike traffic lights, presumably to provide a route between the two cycle tracks that hit opposite corners of the junction, while four sides have pedestrian lights. It's a bizarre "design", especially as the bulk of cyclists that I see at that junction each day are travelling north/south towards/from the city centre and never have cause to use the west or east cycle tracks.

Of course, this means that Mr Magoo was pointing at a green pedestrian light only, with no neighbouring bike traffic light to "confuse" him, as he was giving out to the pedestrian. It's a wonder he is allowed out on his own.

blorg

It is a bizarre one all right. I know the junction well; still we need a diagram of where Mr Magoo and the pedestrian were, headed and where the altercation occurred. Animated would be cool but I will accept Powerpoint.

The tax man

blorg wrote: »

It is a bizarre one all right. I know the junction well; still we need a diagram of where Mr Magoo and the pedestrian were, headed and where the altercation occurred. Animated would be cool but I will accept Powerpoint.

Picture below might come in handy for those to draw details on.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

It is a bizarre one all right. I know the junction well; still we need a diagram of where Mr Magoo and the pedestrian were, headed and where the altercation occurred. Animated would be cool but I will accept Powerpoint.

I cobbled this together for you in a few spare moments while stopped at various traffic lights this morning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LydEn_cJ-dM

I replaced the pedestrian with a car and I took some artistic license with altercation itself (it is now more karmic).

doozerie

I need another good moan, so here goes: I was stopped at a red light at this same junction one evening last week, heading north to south. Pedestrian lights went green and a woman started to walk across. As she walked across in front of my bike, some muppet cycled past me at speed, skimmed past her and continued through the junction. She almost certainly couldn't have seen him past me, and I suspect he didn't see her either. When I got a green light I headed on my way and caught up with him near Rathfarnham (here is a tip to gob****es who break red lights: ye are invariably the slowest things on the road, get fitter and therefore faster on your bikes and you'll get there quicker and safer without having to break any red lights). When I told him he had nearly hit a pedestrian, his response was a smug "yeah, I saw her" which implied that she was never in danger - I'm sure that would have been a great comfort to her. When I pointed out the stupidity of this response he said "the light was green for bikes anyway". At that point I gave up, had to laugh, and cycled off.

Last night I was stopped at the same junction, travelling in same direction. The pedestrian lights went green (and right beside them the stupid bicycle lights for cyclists crossing the west road at the junction went green too), and some auld codger in a car stopped near me chose to interpret these as a green light for him to turn right towards Templeogue. The fact that he encountered a pedestrian, crossing on green, as he made his right turn did not deter him in the slightest and I don't think he even slowed down as they rushed to get out of his way. Poetic justice would have had the pedestrian as the same idiot on the bike above, and would have had the driver respond to his protests with "yeah, I saw you" followed by "the light was green for right-turning cars anyway". Unfortunately there was no poetic justice here though, just another case of morons living up to their name.

tomasrojo

Car seeing _any_ green light and then proceeding is a ubiquitous problem in Dublin.

Most especially when the straight-ahead light comes on, the left filter remains unlit, but the drivers interpret that as "go straight through this light and you can turn immediately left". Every week I end up waving at some motorist and pointing at the green pedestrian light I'm walking towards. Most of them don't seem to understand what has just happened.

Jip

Turning right across the pedestrians crossing on green when only the green filter for straight ahead happens I would say 2 out of every 3 light cycles at Baggot Street Bridge.

BeerNut

This is mostly just stupid light design, though, isn't it? I don't think I've seen simultaneous green and red lights in any other country, other than active filters which in the UK at least are appended to the side of the main three lights.

Why do we need situations where motorists can go straight but not left?

doozerie

BeerNut wrote: »

Why do we need situations where motorists can go straight but not left?

For one thing, to allow pedestrians to cross the road that cars would be turning left onto, without impeding/delaying cars going straight ahead. The principle seems sound enough - given the numerous traffic lights that exist in and around city areas, any opportunity to keep traffic moving where possible isn't a bad thing.

The implementation is sometimes rubbish though, such as right-turning junctions with traffic lights triggered by sensors but where a bicycle can't trigger the sensor, but regardless of how well or how poorly such junctions are designed, far too many road users just choose to do what suits them at junctions regardless of the risks this may pose to others. They may blame the road layout but that is more often than not just a cop-out.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

For one thing, to allow pedestrians to cross the road that cars would be turning left onto, without impeding/delaying cars going straight ahead.

That's the one I had in mind.

doozerie wrote: »

They may blame the road layout but that is more often than not just a cop-out.

Sometimes they're obviously flouting the lights, because they reckon the pedestrians will just get out of their way. In many cases, though, I think the lack of a specific red light telling them that they can't go left means they just assume they can go.

I'm basing this on their reactions when they see a pedestrian (e.g. me!) in the middle of the road as they turn.

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

Sometimes they're obviously flouting the lights, because they reckon the pedestrians will just get out of their way. In many cases, though, I think the lack of a specific red light telling them that they can't go left means they just assume they can go.

They go through often enough even where there is an explicit red light. Clonskeagh Road headed towards Ranelagh turning left onto Milltown road there is often a red with a green straight on. This is to facilitate a pedestrian crossing. Besides the ones who ignore it, anyone observing it and NOT turning left is likely to get beeped at by motorists behind them. Baggot Street bridge too, I had a motorist go particularly gaga at me as a cyclist for not breaking the red filter despite me pointing at the clearly obvious green pedestrian crossing.

tomasrojo

blorg wrote: »

Besides the ones who ignore it, anyone observing it and NOT turning left is likely to get beeped at by motorists behind them. Baggot Street bridge too, I had a motorist go particularly gaga at me as a cyclist for not breaking the red filter despite me pointing at the clearly obvious green pedestrian crossing.

That happened to me, waiting at the filter light to turn left onto Kings St N from Upper Church St. He even caught up with me afterwards so he could spew vitriol in my direction.

Peterx

It's a great junction for interpretation, plenty of confusion giving wriggle room for going through on the red for vehicular traffic.

Two more junctions on the same commute;

Bottom of Clanbrassil st and then again just at the little hill before Christchurch there are 2 more red lights with laid bicycle lanes that don't appear to require a stop even though traffic (potentially including other cyclists wanting the cycle lane) are coming in from the right.

BeerNut

Also, turning right off Arran Quay to cross Father Mathew Bridge there's another one.

buffalo

Peterx wrote: »

Bottom of Clanbrassil st and then again just at the little hill before Christchurch there are 2 more red lights with laid bicycle lanes that don't appear to require a stop even though traffic (potentially including other cyclists wanting the cycle lane) are coming in from the right.

Don't appear to require a stop? Using what logic? The cycle path is on the road and passing inside the traffic lights. All cycle traffic should stop on a red there. I don't see where any confusion might come from.

That's heading north, up the hill. I'm not sure which junction you mean for 'bottom of Clanbrassil St'.

edit: ah, do you mean the double set of lights before Kevin Street? I would argue that the same rules apply as the other junction.

seamus

Here is a beauty. Travelling southbound from Amiens St, you have to stop at the red lights. But you are then perfectly within your rights to walk your bike (you don't even have to jump off) six feet across the ped. crossing and continue on your merry way down the cycle track.

Nice and confusing

buffalo

seamus wrote: »

Here is a beauty. Travelling southbound from Amiens St, you have to stop at the red lights. But you are then perfectly within your rights to walk your bike (you don't even have to jump off) six feet across the ped. crossing and continue on your merry way down the cycle track.

Nice and confusing

That's on my commute: I find if you wait for the lights, you'll hit the next junction as the lights turn green.

Doctor Bob

seamus wrote: »

Here is a beauty. Travelling southbound from Amiens St, you have to stop at the red lights. But you are then perfectly within your rights to walk your bike (you don't even have to jump off) six feet across the ped. crossing and continue on your merry way down the cycle track.

Nice and confusing

Well I'm confused, but I don't think the junction has anything to do with it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Going south on Amiens Street, you meet the red light where there is, to the best of my knowledge, a toucan (ped and bike) crossing. I'm with you so far. But what happens then? I don't get what you mean by 'you are then perfectly within your rights to walk your bike (you don't even have to jump off) six feet across the ped. crossing and continue on your merry way down the cycle track.' When the toucan has a green man/bike, the traffic from Beresford Place - including cyclists heading for the cycle lane - also has a green light.

That cycle lane continues on down Memorial Road, and there's a contra-flow track on the opposite side of Memorial Road (part of the track that takes cycle traffic from City Quay to Amiens Street). Are you talking about the with-flow lane or the contra-flow one?

As I see it, you are not entitled to move through the red light unless you dismount and use the footpath, i.e. become a pedestrian. Could you clarify? Is it just the lack of a side road on your left that prompts the breaking of the lights? Or is it something to do with the toucan crossing?

I regularly see cyclists breaking that red light, but I really don't think it's legal.

seamus

Doctor Bob wrote: »

As I see it, you are not entitled to move through the red light unless you dismount and use the footpath, i.e. become a pedestrian. Could you clarify? Is it just the lack of a side road on your left that prompts the breaking of the lights? Or is it something to do with the toucan crossing?

For the record, I don't break that light. But it appears when you're waiting there that so long as you don't cycle through the red light and onto the cycle track on the other side of the ped. crossing, it's perfectly legal to move onto that cycle track and continue on as if the red light hadn't been there.
You don't have to use the footpath to be a pedestrian - pushing your bike along the road is perfectly fine. As I say, you may not even have to dismount, so long as you're not sitting on the saddle and have no feet on the pedals, but good luck arguing that in front of a judge

doozerie

seamus wrote: »

For the record, I don't break that light. But it appears when you're waiting there that so long as you don't cycle through the red light and onto the cycle track on the other side of the ped. crossing, it's perfectly legal to move onto that cycle track and continue on as if the red light hadn't been there.
You don't have to use the footpath to be a pedestrian - pushing your bike along the road is perfectly fine. As I say, you may not even have to dismount, so long as you're not sitting on the saddle and have no feet on the pedals, but good luck arguing that in front of a judge

I don't believe it is as ambiguous as you suggest. The red traffic lights and stop lines on both car and cycle lanes require that you stop. Pushing your bike along the road to get through the junction counts as breaking the red light just as it would at any other junction. Walking your bike along the road counts as the same thing, although as a pedestrian at that stage you obviously shouldn't be walking along the road as if you were traffic anyway. The fact that there is another cycle track on the other side of the junction doesn't override the fact that the traffic light is red for all road users there.

The existence of the cycle track right to left across the junction is to allow cyclists coming from the Busaras side to get to the cycle track leading to the river, as there is some sort of cycle track on that "traffic island" to the right in front of Busaras (I'm not sure where that cycle track actually comes from/originates). Cyclists crossing the road from that traffic island, who have a green light along with pedestrians, may cross the junction and continue along the cycle track towards the river.

oflahero

I've lost the will to live.

Peterx

buffalo wrote: »

Don't appear to require a stop? Using what logic? The cycle path is on the road and passing inside the traffic lights. All cycle traffic should stop on a red there. I don't see where any confusion might come from.

The cycle path has not got any painted "stop" lines on it - unlike the section of road where the cars are - plenty of room for wilful confusion

short circuit

Here is the logic I use ... open to being shown the error of my ways ...
If the traffic lights are to the right of the cycle lane and I can't see a mark for a cycle to stop on the road, I assume that the lights are for vehicular traffic only.

If the lights are to the left of the cycle lane, I will stop.

If the pedestrian lights are green in the direction I want to travel, I will very happily walk across the junction with the bike unless I know that the next green for vehicular traffic is in my direction. This comes in very handy going from Ranelagh to sandyford where at a couple of junctions if you've just missed the green for cars, you could be waiting 3 to 4 mins for your green again ... where as its only 10 secs to walk when you get the pedestrian green.

buffalo

Peterx wrote: »

The cycle path has not got any painted "stop" lines on it - unlike the section of road where the cars are - plenty of room for wilful confusion

Ah, wilful confusion. It's a T-junction, it's not all that different to a thousand other T-junctions, 'cept it's missing a lick o' paint!

Doctor Bob

Thanks for the clarification, seamus. I think I'll stick with my interpretation!

doozerie wrote: »

The existence of the cycle track right to left across the junction is to allow cyclists coming from the Busaras side to get to the cycle track leading to the river, as there is some sort of cycle track on that "traffic island" to the right in front of Busaras (I'm not sure where that cycle track actually comes from/originates). Cyclists crossing the road from that traffic island, who have a green light along with pedestrians, may cross the junction and continue along the cycle track towards the river.

Agreed on the oddity of the island layout. The toucan crossing in question has no obvious purpose in the network, unless it was intended as a novice-friendly alternative to staying on-road for those cyclists coming from Gardiner Street/Abbey Street intimidated by the chaos of Beresford Place. That might seem unlikely, but afaik the contra-flow system from City Quay to Amiens Street was designed by Dutchies, so it's not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility.

buffalo

Peterx wrote: »

The cycle path has not got any painted "stop" lines on it - unlike the section of road where the cars are - plenty of room for wilful confusion

I passed through the junction at the bottom of the hill at Christchurch tonight, and it definitely has a line across it - though it may be recent.

monument

Peterx wrote: »

The cycle path has not got any painted "stop" lines on it - unlike the section of road where the cars are - plenty of room for wilful confusion

"A red light means "stop". If the light is red as you approach it, you must not go beyond the stop line at that light or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light."

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/traffic-lights-and-signals/traffic-lights.html

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

"A red light means "stop". If the light is red as you approach it, you must not go beyond the stop line at that light or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light."

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/traffic-lights-and-signals/traffic-lights.html

Seems fair enough. There are some on-sidewalk cycle lanes that pass to the left of traffic lights with no stop or yield markings, such as on Alfie Byrne road. Does the red light apply to the cycle lane in that instance?

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

Seems fair enough. There are some on-sidewalk cycle lanes that pass on the outside of traffic lights with no stop or yield markings, such as on Alfie Byrne road. Does the red light apply to the cycle lane in that instance?

From my understanding no.

Fully segregated cycle tracks are separate a carriageway from the road way.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

From my understanding no.

Fully segregated cycle tracks are separate a carriageway from the road way.

Well, that's good because I always just passed the traffic light. Unless there were pedestrians crossing. What a fine fellow I am.

Unwilling

This has little to do with needing glasses and more to do with common sense. I'm putting it up here to release if from my system as it's been eating me up all morning.

Approaching a roundabout I'm turning left. Its a busy roundabout so I'm watching all the traffic approaching from the right.
In the corner of my eye to the left however I notice a pedestrian standing on the edge of the road, with a buggy and a baby in it.
She is making me nervous as she keeps pushing the buggy out and retracting it when she realises the oncoming cars are actually coming HER way and not taking the previous exit off the roundabout.

Anyhow, I notice a break in traffic so I make my entrance onto the roundabout to continue my turn left - incidentally PEDESTRIAN WITH BUGGY also notices this break in traffic, fails obviously to consider MY action and steps out in FRONT OF ME.

I bip the horn. Now I mean bip not a full on HOooooooonk just a bip and she starts YELLING abuse at me.

So next time I'll just hit the f'ing pram with your baby in it shall I.

I'm so annoyed, whatever disregard she may have for her own life, she pushed the buggy out in front of my car!!!

:mad:

seamus

If she is already on the road before you've started turning, you are obliged to yield to her...

Unwilling

Nope she and I pulled out at the same time,

SHE wasn't on the road, her BABY was........ and that is my point. Regardless of who is obliged to yield or not, she was reckless.
IT was by chance I saw her on time.

And as for hurling abuse...........

manwithaplan

I find that it's all about politeness when dealing with pedestrians. You can break all the pedestrian lights you want as long as you slow down and give them a smile. They usually come to the conclusion that they must be in the wrong. "How could a man as nice as that be breaking the law", they think. And shortly afterwards, "nice arse".

Edit: This post may or may not accurately reflect the true opinion of the poster

mtbireland

Regardless of whether she had her foot on the ground first how come you just didn't let her cross first anyway?

Unwilling

Because the pedestrian lights were a bit up the road, she was on a corner and my ass was hanging on the roundabout.
But again, not the point... SHE PUSHED THE PRAM ONTO THE ROAD UNDER THE CARS WHILST SHE STOOD SAFELY ON THE PATH!!!

monument

Unwilling wrote: »

Because the pedestrian lights were a bit up the road,

Pedestrians only have to use ped lights when they are very close to them (15m is it?), otherwise if a person steps out on to the road where you have a reasonable chance to stop the person has the right to cross.