Road Manners

barrym91

I know I'm being very pedantic writing this post but anyway. I was cycling today I was thinking about it for a while. I came to a crossroads. Traffic lights were red. I stopped .... let cars go whose light was green. Then all lights went red with exception of green man for pedestrians straight ahead. I decided I had enough hanging around and went. I wasn't causing any harm to anyone.

Is this correct / against the law? Is there a definitive rule book that cyclists should adhere to?

CoalBucket

barrym91 wrote: »

I know I'm being very pedantic writing this post but anyway. I was cycling today I was thinking about it for a while. I came to a crossroads. Traffic lights were red. I stopped .... let cars go whose light was green. Then all lights went red with exception of green man for pedestrians straight ahead. I decided I had enough hanging around and went. I wasn't causing any harm to anyone.

Is this correct / against the law? Is there a definitive rule book that cyclists should adhere to?

Not correct, from your description you broke a red light.

Definitive book you should adhere to ? Yes, the rules of the road.
This is why motorists can't stand cyclists on the road. They pick and choose which rules apply to them.

barrym91 wrote: »

I decided I had enough hanging around and went

Says it all really

niceonetom

barrym91 wrote: »

I know I'm being very pedantic writing this post but anyway. I was cycling today I was thinking about it for a while. I came to a crossroads. Traffic lights were red. I stopped .... let cars go whose light was green. Then all lights went red with exception of green man for pedestrians straight ahead. I decided I had enough hanging around and went. I wasn't causing any harm to anyone.

Is this correct / against the law? Is there a definitive rule book that cyclists should adhere to?

.

Idleater

Yea! Friday...

kona

nereid wrote: »

Yea! Friday...

Oh we have a Premature Peter:pac:

kona

This thread is a Facepalm.

Its wrong. But so Is talking while on the phone....plenty of motorists in their tin cans do that.

DirkVoodoo

CoalBucket wrote: »

This is why motorists can't stand cyclists on the road. They pick and choose which rules apply to them.

Ha, go over to motors and look at the thread (it was a poll I believe) asking people did they obey the law when driving.

The majority admitted to undertaking, using the phone and speeding. I'm no saint when I drive, I don't pretend to be. I would suggest you do the same.

Yeah, there are some bad cyclists. Going through a pedestrian light when there is no one crossing isn't the worst offense in my book (there may be another book called "the law" that says otherwise). To make a case for this to be used as a reason to "hate" cyclists (what does this mean, would you feel ok about knocking someone down because he is on a bike?) is pretty pathetic.

Captain Havoc

OP could be correct legally in what he done. Some traffic lights have weight sensors that only detect cars and such, if this was the case the OP could treat it as a stuck traffic light in which case he should have prceeded with caution.

This is not a fact but an opinion which would need the verification I couldn't be bothered doing at this late hour.

EDIT: I should really read posts properly before replying, oops.

Lumen

I sometimes break pedestrian lights if there is absolutely no one near them, if it helps me clear the junction and keep the traffic flowing.

There's a T-junction like this on the Clonsilla Road near Coolmine station where all ped lights go green simultaneously.

km991148

Lumen wrote: »

I sometimes break pedestrian lights if there is absolutely no one near them, if it helps me clear the junction and keep the traffic flowing.

yeah I have a good few junctions like this, as I reckon it is good to keep everyone moving, but its not something you can explain easily unless with someone else who looks at it that way, but need to be 100% sure of no peds and on new junctions can be tricky if you dont know how the filter lanes etc work :eek:

jaqian

I think the law should be updated to allow cyclists go with pedestrians (obviously where we do not cut across them). It would be similar to USA where cars can turn right on a red light if nothing coming against them.

tomasrojo

The OP is in the wrong, as already pointed out.

As mentioned above, sometimes you have to break the lights that have induction loops buried in front of them, since you can't activate them by a bike. Even a bike with a large Chariot trailer behind it, as I found out on Emmet Road yesterday. I was at the head of the queue and the car behind me was hanging back respectfully and the lights went through two cycles without giving us a green. I had to motion her to come closer so the lights would be activated, which she did very gingerly indeed. Probably still wondering what was going on.

Apart from that, the only other light I can think that I might be breaking is the set of lights in front of the IMMA in Kilmainham. If you're coming off the contraflow cycle facility on Inchicore Road and want to head south down the South Circular Road, you end up on a traffic island in the middle of a triangle of roads where you are given a green cycle symbol to proced to the IMMA. But no clue about how to legally proceed to the SCR, since there is no cycle symbol on the next set of traffic lights on the junction. So I just exercise judgement, continue on my way while the pedestrians have the green ilght in the junction and give way to all pedestrians.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=imma,+kilmainham,+dublin&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.435825,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=imma,&hnear=Kilmainham,+Co.+Dublin+City,+Ireland&ll=53.341959,-6.308041&spn=0.001099,0.002411&z=19

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

I sometimes break pedestrian lights if there is absolutely no one near them, if it helps me clear the junction and keep the traffic flowing.

I wait for the ped amber to go red and then go before my green. Just time to clip in and get rolling before the cars start.

blorg

cdaly_ wrote: »

I wait for the ped amber to go red and then go before my green. Just time to clip in and get rolling before the cars start.

LAWBREAKER!

ipodrocker

i noticed it often people think its ok to brake the lights, a friend of mine for a court appearance as he was stopped by a garda!

beans

Off-topic I know, but my steel frame activates the buried conduction-thingie at the lights coming out of Gracepark Heights on to Gracepark Road in Whitehall

blorg

ipodrocker wrote: »

i noticed it often people think its ok to brake the lights,

No, it is OK. That is actually what you are meant to do.

Hungrycol

kona wrote: »

Its wrong. But so Is talking while on the phone

Don't you mean driving while on the phone. Hope they haven't made talking on the phone illegal now :rolleyes:

(I'm being pedantic)

tomasrojo

blorg wrote: »

LAWBREAKER!

And now everybody has to condemn so as not to condone. Was it that philosopher TimAllen who noted this precept?

tomasrojo

beans wrote: »

Off-topic I know, but my steel frame activates the buried conduction-thingie at the lights coming out of Gracepark Heights on to Gracepark Road in Whitehall

I can activate the one at the bottom of Temple St. West on my steel bike. And on my old aluminium bike too funnily enough.

The Big Red Button

barrym91 wrote: »

I know I'm being very pedantic writing this post but anyway. I was cycling today I was thinking about it for a while. I came to a crossroads. Traffic lights were red. I stopped .... let cars go whose light was green. Then all lights went red with exception of green man for pedestrians straight ahead. I decided I had enough hanging around and went. I wasn't causing any harm to anyone.

Is this correct / against the law? Is there a definitive rule book that cyclists should adhere to?

Well, I'm no expert on this, but as a motorist there's been plenty of times when I feel I've "had enough" of hanging around at a red light. I might be able to clearly see that, if I went ahead and broke the red light, there are no other motorists or pedestrians about that would be affected by me doing so. But I still don't do it, because those are the rules of the road and they should be adhered to whether you're a cyclist or a motorist!

kona

I though those sensors were weight activated no?

What happens when your car is fibreglass?

petethedrummer

chatterpillar wrote: »

........, if I went ahead and broke the red light, there are no other motorists or pedestrians about that would be affected by me doing so. But I still don't do it, because those are the rules of the road and they should be adhered to whether you're a cyclist or a motorist!

Well done you. Have you ever sneaked through a traffic light that was changing from amber to red or even just an amber light? Ever just nudged over the speed limit?

irishmotorist

kona wrote: »

I though those sensors were weight activated no?

What happens when your car is fibreglass?

I'd say you're in a smaller minority than cyclists and less worthy of consideration than the powers that be...

sumone

kona wrote: »

I though those sensors were weight activated no?

What happens when your car is fibreglass?

Unless you have a fibreglass engine there's still a big lump of metal under the bonnet.

CoalBucket

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Ha, go over to motors and look at the thread (it was a poll I believe) asking people did they obey the law when driving.

Yeah, there are some bad cyclists. Going through a pedestrian light when there is no one crossing isn't the worst offense in my book (there may be another book called "the law" that says otherwise). To make a case for this to be used as a reason to "hate" cyclists (what does this mean, would you feel ok about knocking someone down because he is on a bike?) is pretty pathetic.

I said can't stand cyclists not hate, big difference. Nobody is advocating knocking down cyclists and suggesting it is pretty pathetic.

souter

kona wrote: »

I though those sensors were weight activated no?

What happens when your car is fibreglass?

If you have a fibreglass engine then you'd be in trouble.

Fairly sure the majority are some magnetic/induction thingy - you'll often see an elongated cut in the tarmac. Also know my alu bike has to be laid down on it's side to open the exit barrier for our car park.

tomasrojo

kona wrote: »

I though those sensors were weight activated no?

What happens when your car is fibreglass?

According to Effective Cycling they're mostly induction coils buried in the ground and the inductance of the coil changes when a large bit of metal sits over it. That book is American though, and may also be a bit out of date.

Some explanation here:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question234.htm

I'm assuming the ones here are induction coils, because you can see the "shadow" of the rectangular cutouts mentioned here:

To install the loop, they lay the asphalt and then come back and cut a groove in the asphalt with a saw. The wire is placed in the groove and sealed with a rubbery compound. You can often see these big rectangular loops cut in the pavement because the compound is obvious.

doozerie

chatterpillar wrote: »

Well, I'm no expert on this, but as a motorist there's been plenty of times when I feel I've "had enough" of hanging around at a red light. I might be able to clearly see that, if I went ahead and broke the red light, there are no other motorists or pedestrians about that would be affected by me doing so. But I still don't do it, because those are the rules of the road and they should be adhered to whether you're a cyclist or a motorist!

As a cyclist, and an occasional motorist, I completely agree with you. As a cyclist I've had plenty of drivers/cyclists/pedestrians move into my path and then claim that they simply didn't see me, certainly enough for me to treat the argument of "I couldn't see anyone/anything and therefore I judged that it was safe for me to proceed regardless of traffic lights or road markings" with suspicion and even derision. Proceeding on a green light does not eliminate the risk of colliding with someone/something, but it certainly reduces the odds significantly compared to proceeding on red, almost as if this were by design...

The only exception is the one already stated of a light activated by a sensor where the bike can't trigger it. I have at least one of those on my commute. As cyclists are traffic I would like to think that such sensors are in breach of some law or other, but that doesn't seem to deter councils from installing them (or just not tuning them appropriately to detect bikes).

loyatemu

the law should be updated and/or junctions redesigned to allow cyclists bypass traffic lights where possible - 2 obvious examples being left turn on red and straight on at a T-junction.

Traffic lights are generally designed with motorists in mind, they're a major impediment for cyclists - a bike is not a car, cyclists have far better visual and aural perception of whats going on, and much better manouverability (quite apart from the fact that even the lightest car is over 40 times as heavy a heavy mountain bike and likely to be moving much faster).

I'm not advocating cyclists breaking the law, but theres a reason why many cyclists do - the road infrastructure, and the rules of the road are designed almost exclusively for cars and as applied to cyclists they frequently make no sense.

Civilian_Target

Meh, I agree with the OP actually.

There was a time when I would religiously stop at red lights (good example, obedient, etc.), but I go as soon as I am confident that the junction is clear of cars and peds, even if the light is still red.

I'm at the front of the junction, but I won't be the fastest thing to take off when the lights turn green. I don't see any reason to sit there and inevitably stress both myself and the driver behind me with a slower takeoff when the lights are green. Lets save both of us the hastle by having me go earlier.

Gavin

Cyclists tend to accelerate faster than cars... At least for the initial second or two. And even if you break the light, they are just going to catch up with you and have to sit behind you anyway

doozerie

loyatemu wrote: »

the law should be updated and/or junctions redesigned to allow cyclists bypass traffic lights where possible - 2 obvious examples being left turn on red and straight on at a T-junction.

Traffic lights are generally designed with motorists in mind, they're a major impediment for cyclists - a bike is not a car, cyclists have far better visual and aural perception of whats going on, and much better manouverability (quite apart from the fact that even the lightest car is over 40 times as heavy a heavy mountain bike and likely to be moving much faster).

I'm not advocating cyclists breaking the law, but theres a reason why many cyclists do - the road infrastructure, and the rules of the road are designed almost exclusively for cars and as applied to cyclists they frequently make no sense.

So in advocating that cyclists be allowed to bypass traffic lights how do you propose that protection be offer to cyclists that have a green light against those cyclists that would be allowed to bypass the red light at the same junction?

With the current laws in place to make breaking a red light illegal for everyone I frequently encounter idiots on bikes cutting across in front of me as I pass through a junction on green - good examples of where this happens almost daily are the Y junction where Kimmage Road Lower meets Harold's Cross Road, and the crossroads (New Street/Dean Street) near St. Patrick's Cathedral. The current laws regarding traffic lights are very simple and straightforward, you are suggesting that they be changed so that it is up to each individual cyclist to estimate whether it is safe to break a red light - do you really believe that'll make the roads a safer place? I don't.

As regards traffic lights being an impediment for cyclists, they are actually an impediment for every road user (drivers, bikers, cyclists, and even pedestrians). They also fulfill an important role for everyone in allowing them to, theoretically at least, cross busy routes safely - that safety becomes largely theoretical mainly when random road users decide to ignore the existence of the traffic lights so you end up taking pot luck even when crossing on a green light. If you want to remove these impediments, as you call them, why not propose a reasonable alternative to traffic lights at junctions rather than advocating that they simply be ignored.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

So in advocating that cyclists be allowed to bypass traffic lights how do you propose that protection be offer to cyclists that have a green light against those cyclists that would be allowed to bypass the red light at the same junction?

How are cars allowed turn on a red light in the US? It's treated as a yield rather than stop.

doozerie

monument wrote:

How are cars allowed turn on a red light in the US? It's treated as a yield rather than stop.

I have no idea how well it works in the US in practice. My understanding is that US police forces take traffic offences seriously though, which if true presumably helps focus the minds of drivers on making a decision about whether it is safe to proceed based on something more than just their reduced journey time.

From what I see each day here, safety of others is way down the list of considerations of people who choose to break Irish red lights, and the fear of being challenged by a garda doesn't seem to factor into their decision at all given that I have seen cyclists go straight through red lights at O'Connell Bridge even as there was a garda directing traffic (the garda stepped back out of their way and even seemed to apologise to them).

monument

doozerie wrote: »

I have no idea how well it works in the US in practice.

It works just fine.

doozerie

monument wrote:

It works just fine.

That's good to know, but its success in the US is obviously no guarantee of its success here. Enforcement of the rules of the road here is, at its worst, simply a joke and while that situation persists any initiative that puts the rules at junctions further into the grey area (by relying entirely on peoples' judgement to determine when to proceed or not) will, in my view, make things more difficult for everyone.

superrdave

doozerie wrote: »

That's good to know, but its success in the US is obviously no guarantee of its success here. Enforcement of the rules of the road here is, at its worst, simply a joke and while that situation persists any initiative that puts the rules at junctions further into the grey area (by relying entirely on peoples' judgement to determine when to proceed or not) will, in my view, make things more difficult for everyone.

Well, it seems to work at unsignalled junctions (not that there are many of those in Dublin(!)) in both urban and rural areas, presumably because of their lower traffic volumes. The most important thing to remember is that, by and large, cyclists are only endangering themselves by disobeying traffic signals. Also, enforcement or otherwise of the rules is hardly relevant as to deciding whether or not a change in those rules would make sense.

It's relatively simple.... traffic signals exist to give people an automatic right of way (when the lights are green) and no right of way when they aren't green. What is being proposed here is that if the signals aren't green, then cyclists should be allowed to proceed on a 'yield to right of way' basis. Assuming we are all responsible and vigilant road users (and remembering that a cyclist who isn't vigilant will soon be either a dead or badly injured cyclist) I see no issue with making traffic lights advisory only for cyclists. Now, what you say about enforcement may be true, and in effect it may only be changing the law to make legal that which is already being done illegally on a large scale, but that doesn't make it wrong. If anything, allowing people to take a greater responsibility for themselves rather than slavishly following signals is likely to lead to safer cycling and cyclists being seen as what they are: a separate and vulnerable class of road user who must take responsibility for their own safety at all times. I can think of times where the first vehicle in a queue at traffic lights is a HGV and I am damn sure not going to sit just in front of him waiting to move off!

In short, I think we should be allowed to break lights as we damn well please. We hurt no-one and we are pretty much only endangering ourselves and there shouldn't be a law against that.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

That's good to know, but its success in the US is obviously no guarantee of its success here. Enforcement of the rules of the road here is, at its worst, simply a joke and while that situation persists any initiative that puts the rules at junctions further into the grey area (by relying entirely on peoples' judgement to determine when to proceed or not) will, in my view, make things more difficult for everyone.

Putting things in the grey area might seem counter-intuitive, but getting drivers to think is a good thing.

I'm generalising, but what we currently have here is too many people on urban and residential streets not thinking because of their "right of way". A green light means proceed with caution, but here it is seen to mean feck anybody that gets in my way.

The mindset needs to move more towards sharing the road -- drivers sharing with other drivers and with pedestrians and cyclists, cyclists with pedestrians etc

(I would add, even on a bicycle I have been guilty of not sharing the road, but I try to do so)

doozerie

superdave wrote:

Well, it seems to work at unsignalled junctions (not that there are many of those in Dublin(!)) in both urban and rural areas, presumably because of their lower traffic volumes. The most important thing to remember is that, by and large, cyclists are only endangering themselves by disobeying traffic signals.

I disagree about the danger that cyclists breaking red lights pose. I frequently see cyclists hammering through red lights where pedestrians are crossing, skimming past adults and children alike in the process. I've also had to slam on my brakes quite a few times to avoid colliding with a cyclist that has broken a red light and pulled out in front of me (invariably they don't slow down coming up to the red light so they shoot out from inside of a line of stopped traffic, making them very hard to spot in any kind of reasonable time), sometimes having to veer further into traffic in the process and thereby putting myself at potentially great risk - they never conceded that they were in the wrong either, suggesting they'll behave the very same way the next time round.

The idea that cyclists are not a risk to others is a myth, and I can say that from further personal experience of having collided with pedestrians (invariably when they stepped out from between vehicles in a traffic jam), having seen others collide with pedestrians in front of me, and having seen cyclists colliding with other cyclists.

@monument: I agree with you that too many people assume a right of way when they shouldn't. I also agree that getting people to think is generally a good thing. However, I think initiatives such as allowing cyclists to turn on a red light need to go hand in hand with active enforcement of the rules of the road in order to avoid it leading to cyclists feeling entitled to bend or ignore ever more laws. Although I've heard rumours of possible greater enforcement against cyclists by the gardai I have yet to see any sign of it myself so I remain sceptical that it is happening as yet.

blorg

• Some manners of breaking red lights are more dangerous than others: flying through a busy crossroads on a red is more dangerous than carefully taking a left turn on a red at slow speed.
• While they can still be a risk to others cyclists are less of a risk than motorised vehicles, simply due to their size and velocity. They also potentially have better ability to observe the conditions around them should they choose to use that (no blind spots.)

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

• Some manners of breaking red lights are more dangerous than others: flying through a busy crossroads on a red is more dangerous than carefully taking a left turn on a red at slow speed.
• While they can still be a risk to others cyclists are less of a risk than motorised vehicles, simply due to their size and velocity. They also potentially have better ability to observe the conditions around them should they choose to use that (no blind spots.)

The former (flying through a crossroads on red) I most often see at a junction where the lights are red for all traffic and green for pedestrians. The worst culprits ignore the crossing pedestrians, they don't even touch their brakes at they cut through the pedestrians. Sometimes such people try this on when crossing road traffic has a green too but quickly realise that they are at risk of becoming roadkill under the wheels of the cars/trucks/buses - pedestrians hold no such fear for them though so they seem to be fair game apparently.

As for those taking a left turn on red at slow speed, these have caused me serious issues in the past, particularly along Clanbrassil/New Street. If I'm going fast along Clanbrassil Street and someone appears suddenly from my left having broken a red light and are now crawling directly in front of me that actually poses a greater risk to me than if they took the red light turn at speed and either matched or exceeded my speed. Such idiots tend to suddenly appear from inside a vehicle waiting at the red light so they pop out with no warning. Typically they don't even look to their right as they assume that either they are immortal and/or that everyone else will take whatever evasive action is necessary to avoid colliding with them. The last time that happened I pointed out to the moron on the bike what he had done and his response was that as we hadn't collided it was clearly all fine. The fact that I had to pull out of the cycle lane (into the bus lane) to avoid the collision didn't concern him in the least - he clearly aspires to be roadkill too, and I wish him luck with that.

blorg

I don't deny that there CAN be problems with cyclists breaking a red to turn left but would you agree it is one of the lesser evils if the cyclist slows and does it carefully.

Also- do you use cycle lanes where provided?

tomasrojo

The free right turn on red isn't allowed in every state, but it is allowed in California, where I used to live.

It was ok in practice. You did get the odd miscreant who didn't check for pedestrian before turning or who did in fact see pedestrians and decided to make them scatter like pigeons, but it was ok.

I lived in Orange County and there are very few pedestrians there compared to, say, San Francisco. I didn't notice any antagonism in San Francisco either, but I probably didn't spend enough time there to see what it was really like.

loyatemu

monument wrote: »

How are cars allowed turn on a red light in the US? It's treated as a yield rather than stop.

exactly - cyclists could be allowed treat red lights as "Yield" in certain circumstances, and treat Pelican crossings the same as Zebra crossings (ie if there's no pedestrians crossing, you can proceed) - the onus would be on the cyclist to proceed with caution but you're supposed to do that anyway.

At busier junctions "slip-lane" type cycle lanes could be put in place to allow cyclists to turn left or go straight. Wouldn't have to be a major engineering job - some paint and a bollard or two would suffice in most locations.

thebouldwhacker

I dont really have an issue stopping at lights, it allows you to hammer between breaks. Fortunately in Cork J walking is not only accepted but on occasion is encouraged so if one is in a rush its almost as fast, and safer, to dismount, walk across 3 or 4 meters of road, remount and off you go. When I'm driving (or cycling) there is nothing worse than while approaching a green light to see some langer break a red and shoot out in front of you.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

I don't deny that there CAN be problems with cyclists breaking a red to turn left but would you agree it is one of the lesser evils if the cyclist slows and does it carefully.

You seem to be describing idiotic breaking of red lights on a left turn as a theoretical possibility, it is actually a very real fact which I for one witness (and am subjected to the consequences of) quite often. As regards the lesser evil, I tend to favour stopping and waiting for the light to go green as the lesser evil, but then I do seem to be suffering from a bout of empathy with other road users at the moment and I just can't seem to shake it.

blorg wrote:

Also- do you use cycle lanes where provided?

Oh I do love the smell of a tangent in the morning. Tangents are so conducive to reasoned discussion. Yes, I do use them. Only when I'm driving though, 'cos those other lanes always seem to be filled with cars and stuff and the cycle lanes let me save time which is, like, all important. Not to worry though, I'm a cyclist behind the wheel of that car so unlike "drivers" I am actually endowed with magical powers of vision and avoidance, and just like my bike my car is also made of cuddles so if I collide with anything the worst they'll experience is a big soft hug. I've never been stopped by a garda either so they obviously don't mind.

tomasrojo

@doozerie, I'm sure blorg will get back to you, but I did assume his question was whether you always use cycle lanes where provided.

That is, for example, do you place yourself to the left of left-turning traffic when you intend to go straight ahead if some s-for-brains in DCC decides to put a cycle lane there? If you do, you're probably breaking the law, since you are required by law to do what you can to protect the integrity of your person and your vehicle, and incorrect road positioning at junctions is a primary cause of collisions. If you don't use the cycle lane, you are definitely breaking the law that requires you to use cycle facillities where provided.

Handily enough, there are no laws describing minimum standards for cycle lanes, so DCC are in the clear.

doozerie

@tomasrojo, You may well be right, and it may have been a question from blorg which actually has a relevance to the conversation, but in a discussion about traffic lights on a previous thread he opted to use the topic of cycle lanes as an opportunity to push the discussion in a completely different direction and the traffic light discussion quickly ground to a halt. Maybe he'll clarify though.

I've expressed my poor view of cycle lanes in other threads relatively recently and my views certainly haven't changed in the meantime. I still believe that more often than not they contribute to problems for cyclists rather than solve them, which is not only a shame but also a disgrace considering the money that was invested in putting them in place. I hope to be proved wrong but it seems to me that having dug themselves (and all road users) into this hole in the first place, the approach that councils favour to try to deal with the problems created is to dig even faster.

blorg

@doozerie- I'm suggesting that there is a difference between treating a red as a yield when turning left, and bombing through a red crossing another road without checking. You seem to consider it to be a very black and white area and treat all red light breaking by cyclists as being equal, when it is not.

Red=yield for an inside turn is legal in many jurisdictions. For some reason I don't quite fathom though you think it would be important to "enforce the law" on cyclists before allowing this here. Maybe you think law enforcement is necessary in general but I don't see why it should be connected to this particular measure.

I agree with you entirely that if you bomb through a red to make a left and hit someone that is a big problem. But if you bomb through a yield sign and hit someone that would also be a big problem. What we are talking about here is whether Red=yield is a sensible rule.

I don't want to derail the topic into cycle lanes. I ask regarding the cycle lanes simply as you seem to be very caught up on the law and rule following as it is right now and it would be hypocritical for you to not use cycle lanes when provided (as you are legally obliged to do) if you are making your argument purely from a follow the law/rule-based perspective.

If you want to put the law aside and argue on the basis of what is reasonable and should be allowed then that is fine.

Incidentally I think more motorists get pissed off at cyclists not using cycle lanes as they do at cyclists carefully taking a left on red (again, I am not defending bombing through a red across a junction here.) So I don't think that would be a good argument against people breaking a red to turn left unless they also follow the law on cycle lane use.

superrdave

blorg wrote: »

@doozerie- I'm suggesting that there is a difference between treating a red as a yield when turning left, and bombing through a red crossing another road without checking. You seem to consider it to be a very black and white area and treat all red light breaking by cyclists as being equal, when it is not.

Red=yield for an inside turn is legal in many jurisdictions. For some reason I don't quite fathom though you think it would be important to "enforce the law" on cyclists before allowing this here. Maybe you think law enforcement is necessary in general but I don't see why it should be connected to this particular measure.

I agree with you entirely that if you bomb through a red to make a left and hit someone that is a big problem. But if you bomb through a yield sign and hit someone that would also be a big problem. What we are talking about here is whether Red=yield is a sensible rule.

I don't want to derail the topic into cycle lanes. I ask regarding the cycle lanes simply as you seem to be very caught up on the law and rule following as it is right now and it would be hypocritical for you to not use cycle lanes when provided (as you are legally obliged to do) if you are making your argument purely from a follow the law/rule-based perspective.

If you want to put the law aside and argue on the basis of what is reasonable and should be allowed then that is fine.

Incidentally I think more motorists get pissed off at cyclists not using cycle lanes as they do at cyclists carefully taking a left on red (again, I am not defending bombing through a red across a junction here.) So I don't think that would be a good argument against people breaking a red to turn left unless they also follow the law on cycle lane use.

I think doozerie is just trolling here. What is being suggested is eminently sensible (that red lights should be treated the same as yield signs for cyclists) but doozerie is using his anecdotal personal experience of bad cyclist behaviour (wantonly and dangerously breaking red lights, disregarding pedestrians etc) as an argument against allowing cyclists to disregard traffic signals where it is safe for them and other road users to do so. Surely whether the law was changed or not, the same behaviour would continue.

If we allowed cyclists to treat traffic signals as advisory rather than mandatory, surely it would encourage more people to cycle and give greater flexibility and responsibility to cyclists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachten