Road Manners

Gavin

superrdave wrote: »

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.

That's fairly woeful debating, he's not a troll, he makes valid points.

I also don't see why left on red should be treated as yield just for cyclists. Make it the same for cars and bikes, fine, but just bikes ? If you're on the road, follow the rules of the road.

Before the cycle lane point is made again, there is a difference between breaking the law for safety and breaking the law for convenience. If a cycle lane puts me in a dangerous position, I won't use it. I've never encountered a set of traffic lights which I needed to break for my safety.

droidus

Gavin wrote: »

Before the cycle lane point is made again, there is a difference between breaking the law for safety and breaking the law for convenience. If a cycle lane puts me in a dangerous position, I won't use it. I've never encountered a set of traffic lights which I needed to break for my safety.

Are you sure? I have on many occasions pulled ahead of traffic at a red light whilst waiting to proceed in order to avoid getting mowed down when the lights change, and technically speaking if you pull ahead of the line or the light itself you're breaking the light.

petethedrummer

Gavin wrote: »

I've never encountered a set of traffic lights which I needed to break for my safety.

Some of them really make my blood boil, I reckon I could get serious high blood pressure and eventually die if I don't break them.

DirkVoodoo

Gavin wrote: »

Before the cycle lane point is made again, there is a difference between breaking the law for safety and breaking the law for convenience. If a cycle lane puts me in a dangerous position, I won't use it. I've never encountered a set of traffic lights which I needed to break for my safety.

There is a set on the quays (Tara street, over bridge, turning right onto custom house quay) I broke once. The pedestrian light went green and no one was crossing. I made the choice and decided that the length of road across the junction to the cycle lane was a little far and if I wasn't racing away from the lights there is a chance I might get an impatient driver up behind me. Also, people always seem to be in the wrong lanes here and there is much criss crossing going on. In the end I broke the law and if I got pulled up by a Garda I would have had to accept my fine, but I had a perfect view of a very wide pedestrian crossing and didn't race through it, it was in my view a good call to make and I didn't hold up the entire right hand turning lane.

Peetrik

Gavin wrote: »

If you're on the road, follow the rules of the road.

Technically J walking is also illegal, is every j-walker an irresponsible lunatic. Should kids with training wheels on their bikes be taken off the path and made take their chances on the road, rollerblades have wheels also, should they be made go on the road

Its not always black and white and to claim it is... then I would also think you were just trolling.

Some times you just use your common sense, and at a pedestrian lights with no pedestrians or a left turn when its safe to do so then I ignore the lights

DirkVoodoo

Peetrik wrote: »

Technically J walking is also illegal, is every j-walker an irresponsible lunatic.

I think you have to be within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing for it to be jaywalking.

blorg

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I think you have to be within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing for it to be jaywalking.

S.I. No. 182/1997:

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

Gavin

Peetrik wrote: »

Technically J walking is also illegal, is every j-walker an irresponsible lunatic.

As Dirk (edit - and Blorg) says, it's with 15 metres of a traffic light. However, having been in Berlin recently where the majority of people obey pedestrian traffic lights, and also Hawaii where jay-walking is rigorously enforced, I have to say I like it. Everyone does what they are meant to do, no confusion.

Some times you just use your common sense, and at a pedestrian lights with no pedestrians or a left turn when its safe to do so then I ignore the lights

Usual answer to that is, do you do the same in a car and if not, why not ?

To the point about pulling ahead of cars at awkward junctions, there's a simple solution to that, I learned from a post here. Don't go the head of the queue, pull in behind a car two or three from the front. It's easier to keep up with the car when the lights go, and cars behind are less inclined to dangerously overtake as there is no appealing empty space ahead.

Gavin

petethedrummer wrote: »

Some of them really make my blood boil, I reckon I could get serious high blood pressure and eventually die if I don't break them.

Ok, if the lights don't change because the bike doesn't trip the sensor, fair enough. Not much you can do.

Peetrik

Gavin wrote: »

Usual answer to that is, do you do the same in a car and if not, why not ?

Of course not, I thought my post made it clear that I dont think cars and bikes should be treated the same.

The differance between the level of danger from a motorised vehicle and a pedal bike needs no debate... unless you want to play chicken with me in a car and you on a bike? kidding of course but you know what I mean

doozerie

Gavin wrote: »

I also don't see why left on red should be treated as yield just for cyclists. Make it the same for cars and bikes, fine, but just bikes ? If you're on the road, follow the rules of the road.

Exactly. We are all road users so we should all abide by the same set of rules so that we give others at least some chance of not mowing us down - making up our own arbitrary set of rules as and when it suits us (e.g. "I'm running late, therefore red lights suddenly don't apply to me") increases our likelihood of being mashed, or of mashing someone else, significantly. Humans are fundamentally selfish creatures and the ability of people to see dangerous consequences from their own actions appears to be inversely proportional to how much of a hurry they are in.

@blorg, You may choose to believe that behaviour at red lights concerns me purely because I fret about people not following a rule written down somewhere. In reality it concerns me because the rules of the road are there to provide some measure of safety by making it clear to people how they should behave and how they should expect others to behave. In fairness to them, the rules of the road work quite well on the whole. It's not often that you encounter someone choosing to cycle/drive exclusively on the right hand side of the road, for example - people who cycle/drive on the left hand side of the road could also be accused of slavishly following a rule but I presume you'll forgive them for that. Before you start to dismiss some of the rules of the road simply because they are rules, you might consider taking the time to be grateful that the vast majority of road users around you regularly abide by them as otherwise a trip on the road would be like a round of russian roulette. If you want another phrase to cover it, then "social responsibility" will do.

There is an awful lot of hysteria surrounding cycling generally. Many people maintain that it is completely unsafe and that it is just a matter of time before any cyclist is badly hurt. There is an irrational fear built up around it. It is this fear more than anything else that deters people from cycling, not the prospect of having to wait at red lights (which you would have to do anyway if in a car) and the like. Every now and again some initiative is proposed to supposedly make the world a better place for cyclists. The most significant of those has been the installation of cycle tracks and that hasn't exactly been a roaring success for cyclists or anyone else. Pushing for the right to ignore red lights seems to me to be another pointless initiative and yet another one that may create more problems (i.e. unsafe behaviour) than it solves.

As cyclists we are already doing better than motorists that have to endure ridiculous traffic jams on a daily basis, but apparently that isn't enough for some. Some people want us to act like a needy child seeking further and further special treatment. Me, I'd prefer to see some serious effort put into ensuring that all road users obeyed the rules of the road and hammer those that don't. No initiative will be nearly as effective in making us (all) safer on the roads than ensuring that road users don't behave like selfish and arrogant morons, and that applies as much to people on bikes as people in cars. Unfortunately, a lot of people both on bikes and in cars don't seem to have much of a social conscience and the only way to try to curtail their idiotic behaviour is to impose penalties on them when they behave like idiots in the hope that this will discourage them in the future. Which is where enforcement of the rules of the road plays an important role. So the theory goes that if you behave like a mindless child on the road, you must expect to pay the price - it's certainly not a great system, but it helps, or at least it would do if it was enforced.

doozerie

Peetrik wrote: »

Of course not, I thought my post made it clear that I dont think cars and bikes should be treated the same.

The differance between the level of danger from a motorised vehicle and a pedal bike needs no debate... unless you want to play chicken with me in a car and you on a bike? kidding of course but you know what I mean

How about we play chicken with you as a pedestrian and me on a bike? Or you on a bike and me on a bike?

My point is that cyclists are a danger to others, including other cyclists. I've seen a pedestrian be hit by a car, bounce off the bonnet, hit the ground, pick themselves up and walk away. I've seen a kid (about 12yrs old I'd guess) hit by a cyclist, spin in the air, and land on his face - he didn't walk off, though he did pick himself up in shock and howl as blood poured from his nose and mouth. Any argument based on cyclists not being a risk to others is flawed from the start.

Peetrik

You realise that ridgedly insisting that bikes follow car road rules means you cant undertake another car? Also by your logic any car that over takes you on a solid white line should be fine and given penalty points?

Im being purposefully pedantic here to make a point... sometimes you just use your common sense

LastGasp

I was on my way to work this morning on South end of Fonthill Road. I went through a Red - sneaked across the "top" of a T-Junction as I sometimes do when there's nothing going the same direction. Next thing you know there's a squad car cruising alongside. I hadn't even really noticed that I broke the light - I thought they were going to tell me I should be on the Cycle path ! They were nice about it anyway - I'll have to behave myself in future !

doozerie

Peetrik wrote: »

You realise that ridgedly insisting that bikes follow car road rules means you cant undertake another car? Also by your logic any car that over takes you on a solid white line should be fine and given penalty points?

Im being purposefully pedantic here to make a point... sometimes you just use your common sense

Yes, strictly speaking bicycles should overtake on the outside of cars according to the rules of the road (except where a cycle lane exists, of course, as you are allowed to undertake traffic if the outer lane is going more slowly than yours). I'd be happy to overtake on the outside too except that it has been common practice for some time for cars to allow room on their inside for cyclists - it has probably been common practice "forever" in fact but I think the existence of cycle tracks has made it even more prevalent in recent years. I very rarely overtake on the outside these days but certainly used to do so regularly years back, just like motorbikes and other traffic. As such, car drivers expect cyclists to be on their left rather than on their right so that makes it a safer place to be usually, and for me safety is paramount ('cos I don't want to die, or indeed kill anyone else). It does makes things a mess though, as motorbikers are then often left with no room on the outside to overtake, and unless car drivers allow for situations where cyclists have to be to their right (where cyclist is in a right turning lane for example) it can be quite a mess for cyclists too at times. The only "solution" as such is for all road users to make, and keep, themselves aware of those around them and not to behave erratically, so the responsibility lies with cyclists and drivers alike to signal their intentions before moving/changing line, etc.

As for a car that overtakes you on a solid white line, if they cross the white line then they certainly deserve to be fined and given penalty points. The solid white lines are intended to identify where it is unsafe to cross to the other side of the road regardless of what the driver might consider safe. Typically solid white lines occur before blind bends, hidden dips in the road, where kids may be crossing, etc. Many crashes have occurred because drivers have decided that they somehow knew better and opted to cross a solid white line in the blind hope that they wouldn't meet anything coming the other way that is currently obscured from their view.

Incidentally, I find it curious that you use the word "rigidly" in reference to my advocating adherence to the rules of the road. Much like blorg you seem to choose to assume that I am concerned with nothing more than people breaking rules, but as I mentioned in a previous post my concern is the safety that is compromised by people choosing to ignore some of the most simple and basic rules such as red light = stop. Seems like just plain common sense to me.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

[...] except where a cycle lane exists, of course, as you are allowed to undertake traffic if the outer lane is going more slowly than yours.

I have never found any law that suggests that cycle lanes give you right of way when you pass on the inside. Nobody who has killed a cyclist on a cycle path while turning left has been done for dangerous driving, as far as I know, so I would not assume it's either safe or going to give you any legal protection.

I think the legal situation regarding virtually every aspect of cycle lanes is nebulous.

(I have no training in law; if someone knows better, please enlighten me!)

Lumen

Peetrik wrote: »

I'm being purposefully pedantic here to make a point... sometimes you just use your common sense

What you talkin'bout Willis?

There is no room for common sense in this debate.

doozerie

@tomasrojo, The rules on overtaking on the left, from here, are:

You may overtake on the left when

* You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.
* You have signalled that you intend to turn left.
* Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.

My reading of that is the cyclists in cycle lanes may overtake by virtue of them being labelled cycle "lanes". The naming of cycle lanes changed some years ago, I'm not sure when, so that they all became known as "lanes" instead of "tracks". My understanding is that prior to this a cycle "track" had to be separated from the road by kerbing (or possibly had to be raised up relative to the road) whereas a cycle "lane" was part of the road itself and was separated by a painted line. I presume that the rules governing cycle tracks differed from those governing cycle lanes though I don't know for sure. These days I presume that all cycle lanes fall under the definition of lane as used in the rules of the road, including those formerly referred to as cycle tracks.

Peetrik

Lumen wrote: »

What you talkin'bout Willis?

There is no room for common sense in this debate.

Yeah I think you might be right. I have to work on my smiling and nodding

blorg

doozerie wrote:

My point is that cyclists are a danger to others, including other cyclists. I've seen a pedestrian be hit by a car, bounce off the bonnet, hit the ground, pick themselves up and walk away. I've seen a kid (about 12yrs old I'd guess) hit by a cyclist, spin in the air, and land on his face - he didn't walk off, though he did pick himself up in shock and howl as blood poured from his nose and mouth. Any argument based on cyclists not being a risk to others is flawed from the start.

Joggers can also be a danger. Refusing to acknowledge that cars present a greater danger is ridiculous. What percentage of road traffic fatalities are caused by cyclists?

doozerie wrote: »

As for a car that overtakes you on a solid white line, if they cross the white line then they certainly deserve to be fined and given penalty points.

Incidentally, it is legal to cross a continuous white line to overtake a cyclist, animal or other slow moving vehicle in the UK although not, I believe, in this jurisdiction. This is common sense and good law that discourages passing cyclists and animals dangerously close.

doozerie wrote:

My reading of that is the cyclists in cycle lanes may overtake by virtue of them being labelled cycle "lanes". The naming of cycle lanes changed some years ago, I'm not sure when, so that they all became known as "lanes" instead of "tracks".

No it didn't. Legally there is no such thing as a cycle lane, the term is "cycle track." This includes both off road and on-road variants.

doozerie wrote:

as I mentioned in a previous post my concern is the safety that is compromised by people choosing to ignore some of the most simple and basic rules such as red light = stop.

I don't think a cyclist carefully taking a left on a red compromises safety. You seem to treat all red light breaking as equal, while I don't think it is. I do think sailing across a junction on red without paying attention is dangerous; I can't summon up any righteous indignation however on a cyclist treating a red as a yield to make a left turn.

Beasty

blorg wrote: »

Incidentally, it is legal to cross a continuous white line to overtake a cyclist, animal or other slow moving vehicle in the UK although not, I believe, in this jurisdiction. This is common sense and good law that discourages passing cyclists and animals dangerously close.

...only if the slow moving "object" is travelling at less than 15 mph.

NamelessPhil

blorg wrote: »

You seem to treat all red light breaking as equal, while I don't think it is.

You can think all you like but it is equally illegal in the eyes of the law (and doozerie by the standards of this thread).


If you would like to change the law go and contact your TD, join a lobby group, facebook petition, whatever.

Until the law changes all this argument is so many wasted pixels.

blorg

NamelessPhil wrote: »

You can think all you like but it is equally illegal in the eyes of the law (and doozerie by the standards of this thread).


If you would like to change the law go and contact your TD, join a lobby group, facebook petition, whatever.

Until the law changes all this argument is so many wasted pixels.

We are discussing here what the law should allow.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

Joggers can also be a danger. Refusing to acknowledge that cars present a greater danger is ridiculous. What percentage of road traffic fatalities are caused by cyclists?

I never claimed that cars don't present a greater danger than cyclists, that's just how you've chosen to interpret my posts for whatever reason. What I have said is that cyclists pose a danger too, which is counter to the frequently touted claim that cyclists pose no danger to others whatsoever - that claim is often used to argue that cyclists should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they like.

blorg wrote:

I don't think a cyclist carefully taking a left on a red compromises safety. You seem to treat all red light breaking as equal, while I don't think it is. I do think sailing across a junction on red without paying attention is dangerous; I can't summon up any righteous indignation however on a cyclist treating a red as a yield to make a left turn.

I cited examples earlier of where my safety was put at risk by idiots on bikes turning left on a red light. Were they being "careful" under your definition of of the word? Well, they didn't die or get hurt so from their perspective they were certainly careful "enough". As the person who had to take emergency measures to avoid colliding with them though, I don't consider that they were "careful" at all. Perhaps if you encounter one of these people yourself you'll discover an un-tapped well of righteous indignation to dip into.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

I cited examples earlier of where my safety was put at risk by idiots on bikes turning left on a red light...As the person who had to take emergency measures to avoid colliding with them though, I don't consider that they were "careful" at all.

I wonder under what circumstances it is acceptable (legally and morally speaking) to relieve the bike of its idiot? I'm not quite sure how "duty to retreat" works in the case of being threatened by an oncoming cyclist.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

I never claimed that cars don't present a greater danger than cyclists, that's just how you've chosen to interpret my posts for whatever reason. What I have said is that cyclists pose a danger too, which is counter to the frequently touted claim that cyclists pose no danger to others whatsoever - that claim is often used to argue that cyclists should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they like.

I don't think anyone argues that cyclists pose no danger, but certainly the danger is minuscule compared to a motorised vehicle.

I cited examples earlier of where my safety was put at risk by idiots on bikes turning left on a red light. Were they being "careful" under your definition of of the word? Well, they didn't die or get hurt so from their perspective they were certainly careful "enough". As the person who had to take emergency measures to avoid colliding with them though, I don't consider that they were "careful" at all. Perhaps if you encounter one of these people yourself you'll discover an un-tapped well of righteous indignation to dip into.

If they flew through a red to take a left turn disregarding other traffic and pedestrians, sure they were not being careful. They were being assholes.

Someone who slows/stops and treats a red as a yield I have little trouble with.

Someone who flies through a green into a pedestrian is also an asshole. The red light is not to me the significant factor here.

Moreofthatjazz

As of late i've seen a hell of alot of numbskull cycling everywhere... For the most part it is down to a complete and utter lack of awareness and concideration for other road users be they pedestrians, other cyclists or vehicular traffic of whatever nature... I'm no saint by any manner or means but have enough years in the saddle to give courtesy at junctions to pedestrians and other cyclists, not sit blocking the Ped crossings, or weave through, which to be honest is downright rude...
For the vast majority of the time i abide by the lights... Except for turning left and only if the road is completely clear...
The folks that are on this forum are, as i see it, those that are least likely to cause issues on the road, but the rank and file cyclist will follow the lead of those that look like they know what they are doing and get themselves bad habits and as ive seen quite a few times big trouble...
on a side note i resolved my issues with red lights by seeing them as a short sprints, if i make it, deadly, if not then i get to practice my pickups...
Cycling is enjoyable, alot more so than fuming in a car, bus, tram or whatever... but in the effort to carve our niche on the road we have become very self-righteous and that just makes for elitism, which should not be the way forward...

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

I don't think anyone argues that cyclists pose no danger, but certainly the danger is minuscule compared to a motorised vehicle.

Miniscule? Really? At the extreme end of the scale, pedestrians have been killed in collisions with cyclists, which demonstrates that cyclists can be just as dangerous as motorised vehicles (sure, you might end up flatter or messier under the wheels of a car, but dead is dead and after that it's just a matter of how large a shovel you need to clear up the mess). Of course, the vast majority of collisions with cyclists don't result in a death of a pedestrian or of another cyclist, but there is a wide range of injuries that fall between the two possible extremes. Does someone suffering broken bones from a collision with a cyclist fall within your definition of miniscule danger, for example? How about lost or broken teeth? Or a few stitches?

blorg wrote:

If they flew through a red to take a left turn disregarding other traffic and pedestrians, sure they were not being careful. They were being assholes.

Someone who slows/stops and treats a red as a yield I have little trouble with.

Someone who flies through a green into a pedestrian is also an asshole. The red light is not to me the significant factor here.

As I mentioned earlier, those people that I spoke to who had broken a red light and pulled in front of me all treated my reaction to them with disdain. They saw nothing wrong with what they did, so in their eyes they had been careful "enough" and they will almost certainly do the same thing in the same circumstances in the future because they suffered no harm from doing it the last time. I'll repeat what I said earlier, humans are selfish creatures and their decisions are often based on nothing other than their own best interests regardless of the consequences for others. By advocating making a red light equivalent to a yield sign, you are arguing for people to be allowed to use their judgement more often. Many of the rules of the road (speed limits, restrictions on where you can park, restrictions on where you can overtake, etc.) exist because time and time again humans have demonstrated that in certain things their judgement is not reliable or considerate of others. If you honestly believe that peoples' judgement is so good and trustworthy then you must consider drivers of motorised vehicles to be equally capable of safe decisions in which case you should also be happy to see motorised vehicles being allowed to treat a red light as a yield. Or do we now going round in circles again and back to the theory that cyclists and their bikes are made of cuddles while drivers and motorised vehicles are made of rage and death?

More generally, I believe that initiatives that seek to segregate us (cyclists) further and further from other road users are just shooting ourselves in the foot at a certain point. I mentioned it in a previous post, but cycle lanes are an example of what we end up with when we go this route. Personally, I'm happy to continue waiting at red lights. Yes, it delays me on my journeys but guess what, despite having to endure the delays every day on my commute the world hasn't actually stopped spinning yet. Perhaps I could have used those supposedly wasted minutes to do something great, like cure cancer, but I doubt it. Instead I use the time to my own advantage, getting more track stand practice in and also chewing popcorn while watching lots of other people sail through the red light putting their own safety entirely in the hands of others (while putting the safety of others completely up in the air).

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

Miniscule? Really? At the extreme end of the scale, pedestrians have been killed in collisions with cyclists, which demonstrates that cyclists can be just as dangerous as motorised vehicles

I know what you mean doozerie, but I agree with blorg on logical grounds. "Minuscule" doesn't mean "zero".

For example, the risk of an adult drowning in a shallow bath is minuscule. Nevertheless it does happen from time to time. I would agree with the statement: "the danger of drowning posed by having a shallow bath is minuscule compared to the the danger of drowning while swimming in the open ocean".

I can only think of one person who was killed by a bicycle in the last fifteen years: a gentleman was killed by a cycle courier who was going the wrong way down a one-way street. There are over a hundred people killed by motorised vehicles every year without fail (I'm not sure of the exact figure, because you'd have to subtract the single-vehicle collisions from the road accident figures). The numerical difference is huge; the number of cyclists is about fifty times smaller than the number of motorists, but the number of people killed by motorists is a few thousand times larger than the number killed by cyclists. The statistics for serious injuries would be similar, I think, though there must be a great many minor injuries caused by cyclists that go unreported every year, simply because they are minor injuries.

I agree with you about not breaking lights. But at the same time, I never use cycle tracks, and I use the tramway at Heuston Station to cross the Liffey to get to Arbour Hill. Both are illegal. I have no compunction about doing either, because I can't see what harm I'm doing and I'm doing what I am completely convinced is safer.

By the same token, there may be certain lights that are safer to go through ahead of motorised traffic. Certainly, the fact that more women are killed by left-turning HGVs and buses than men has been attributed to women being more obedient at lights and not going ahead of traffic by breaking lights.

monument

Gavin wrote: »

I also don't see why left on red should be treated as yield just for cyclists. Make it the same for cars and bikes, fine, but just bikes ? If you're on the road, follow the rules of the road.

As blorg said, the conversation was more edging towards talk of changing rather than breaking the rules of the road.

By the way, the rules of the road are not the same for cyclists and motorists -- only cyclists can use advance stop boxes, only motorists can use motorways etc.

tomasrojo

Certainly, the fact that more women are killed by left-turning HGVs and buses than men has been attributed to women being more obedient at lights and not going ahead of traffic by breaking lights.

Funnily enough, came up in the print-edition of the Guardian today, and it's on their website too.

(Again, I'm not advocating breaking red lights.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

barrym91

Did a cycling tour of Holland this Easter. They have got their bicycle rules of the road sorted! Traffic lights especially for cyclists everywhere (not pedestrian lights nor vehicle lights). Also, bicycles have right of the way around roundabouts...cars literally stop in the middle of a roundabout just before they exist and let the cyclist go on. Couldn't believe it at the start. Felt very safe cycling over there. There were a couple of other interesting and subtle differences to the rules for cyclists in comparison to our rules. The topography of most of Ireland is very similar to Holland and the weather is almost identical so a couple of changes to the rules could be another way of promoting cycling over here.

Fair play to the Greens so far with the cycle to work scheme and the bike rental scheme in Dublin.

oflahero

On my way out today for an epic in the scorcher that was today, I ended up shadowing one of our cycle Gardai from Aungier St to Christchurch, where I finally lost him. He sailed through every red light presented to him, but definitely didn't look like he was on his way to an emergency anywhere. Hard to argue with example like that.

tomasrojo

Just in the interest of giving credit where its due: the Dublin Bike scheme had nothing to do with the Greens. It was spearheaded by Andrew Montague, a Labour Dublin City Councillor (and occasional Boards contributor).

barrym91

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just in the interest of giving credit where its due: the Dublin Bike scheme had nothing to do with the Greens. It was spearheaded by Andrew Montague, a Labour Dublin City Councillor (and occasional Boards contributor).

Interesting Tomas. Didn't know that. Just assumed it was the greens. Here's to Andrew Montague then!

doozerie

@tomasrojo, Re pedestrians killed by cyclists, I am aware of at least two notable such occurences in the UK in recent years. One involved a teenager (as far as I can remember) cycling on the pavement and colliding with someone, the other involved a collision between a cyclist and a girl. I can't find a link for the former, but here is some discussion of the latter. I've read various accounts of the latter, but that BikeRadar article is the first that I recall mentioning a specific speed - it says the collision happened at the relatively slow speed of 17mph though I think previous reports referred to something more vague like "at high speed" or similar.

While searching for the above link, I also found this Guardian article on police targeting red light jumpers in London. It is an interesting article in its own right, but one sentence that really stands out is this:

Given, some cyclists ask, that of the 600 or so pedestrians killed in the UK each year, about one on average is struck by a bike, ...

...unless that is just very badly worded journalism, it seems to be suggesting that on average one pedestrian is killed by a cyclist each year in the UK. That is higher than I would have expected. They give no figures to back up their statement though so it may be speculation. Regardless though, my original point is that cyclists can cause serious harm, and in extreme cases even death, in a collision with a pedestrian so people who dismiss the dangers posed in such a collision are choosing to ignore reality.

As regards that widely reported study that claims that women cyclists are more likely to die because they respect traffic lights, personally I am very sceptical of this claim. It seems to me that the real problem here is people positioning themselves in the blind spot of a vehicle and adherence to traffic lights is not the problem. This BBC article discusses the issue further.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

@tomasrojo, Re pedestrians killed by cyclists, I am aware of at least two notable such occurences in the UK in recent years. One involved a teenager (as far as I can remember) cycling on the pavement and colliding with someone, the other involved a collision between a cyclist and a girl.

bikeradar wrote:

Aylesbury magistrates were told Howard had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" before crashing into her and were also presented with evidence that he could have swerved to avoid Rhiannon, but decided to stay on a straight course towards Rhiannon and her friends

That is someone behaving like an asshole. Cycling straight into someone at 27km/h bears what relation exactly to cautiously making a left turn on a red?

doozerie

blorg wrote:

That is someone behaving like an asshole. Cycling straight into someone at 27km/h bears what relation exactly to cautiously making a left turn on a red?

My point is that a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, or between a cyclist and another cyclist, is not always the minor tip that some people like to believe. As to any link between that and making a left run on a red light, I wasn't making one. Should you want one though then there is an increased risk of a collision between an unwary/ignorant cyclist and a pedestrian who doesn't expect a cyclist to suddenly come rattling around the corner towards them through a red light.

You can use as many variations on the word "cautiously" as you like but the fact is that many cyclists already ignore red lights with no regard for others which gives no reason to be optimistic that they'll behave any better if the laws are relaxed further. In my view as cyclists we should have to earn the right for concessions like being able to treat a red light as a yield, and currently the majority of cyclists that I see each day have no respect for red lights and so as a body we have not earned that right when all we are talking about here is an initiative to save us time on our journeys. If motorists sought the same concession there'd be uproar and talk of lives put at risk and motorists trying to satisfy their own self-importance, but somehow when cyclists seek it we are apparently doing so for some greater good, which I find bizarre.

blorg

No-one has argued that a bicycle is completely without risk; that is a straw man you have constructed. What has been argued is that the risk is much lower than that posed by motorised vehicles. Pulling out a couple of cases in the last few years where a cyclist has killed someone when cars are killing people every day sort of supports that point. Ironic too that the one case you do have a reference for was not an accident caused by a cyclist disobeying some traffic rule but rather was caused by said cyclist cycling on the road into a pedestrian he obviously felt should not be there.

Your self-flagellation regarding cycling is frankly bizarre, this idea that cyclists have to "earn" sensible treatment through acting virtuously. I think you may have a bit of the "self-hating cyclist" going on there. You wouldn't be a member of the Fine Gael party by any chance? Do you think cyclists should have compulsory insurance, registration plates and pay "road tax"?

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

No-one has argued that a bicycle is completely without risk; that is a straw man you have constructed. What has been argued is that the risk is much lower than that posed by motorised vehicles. Pulling out a couple of cases in the last few years where a cyclist has killed someone when cars are killing people every day sort of supports that point. Ironic too that the one case you do have a reference for was not an accident caused by a cyclist disobeying some traffic rule but rather was caused by said cyclist cycling on the road into a pedestrian he obviously felt should not be there.

Your self-flagellation regarding cycling is frankly bizarre, this idea that cyclists have to "earn" sensible treatment through acting virtuously. I think you may have a bit of the "self-hating cyclist" going on there. You wouldn't be a member of the Fine Gael party by any chance? Do you think cyclists should have compulsory insurance, registration plates and pay "road tax"?

"Calm down dear!"



If it makes you feel better to think that a person holding a different view than yours is a cycling-hating loon, then go right ahead. 'Tis a poor reflection on you though.

Chips Lovell

I think the "yield on left" idea is worthy of consideration.

Having said that, I do agree that there's a majority of cyclists out there who feel that the law doesn't apply to them. Introducing a new law like this could harden the widespread notion that cyclists are somehow special and above the law. Mind you, it's hard to see how these people could behave any worse on the road.

I also don't feel particularly aggrieved about having to stop at lights. In built up areas, you're still faster than other traffic a lot of the time.

BostonB

if they don't police/enforce it. People will ignore it.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

As regards that widely reported study that claims that women cyclists are more likely to die because they respect traffic lights, personally I am very sceptical of this claim. It seems to me that the real problem here is people positioning themselves in the blind spot of a vehicle and adherence to traffic lights is not the problem. This BBC article discusses the issue further.

I agree that positioning is the problem, but most cyclist have very poor positioning at junctions, even going so far as to pass on the left of left-turning traffic, even in the absence of a cycle lane "compelling" them to do so. There is a tragic irony that of the cyclists who don't know about road positioning, it is the more obedient ones that are most at risk.

As you say, if you are going to obey the lights, and you should of course, then you must position yourself in such a way that the truck driver can see you. However, a very "obedient" road user will also usually follow the cycle lane, which usually places you in the path and blind spot of turning lorries. A further complication is that in Ireland, you are required to place yourself in this position at many junctions, either because you are place to the left of left-turning traffic, or because the ASL box is too shallow.

I only brought it up out of interest. As I said, I don't advocate red light breaking (apart from those with induction loops).

Just to stir it up, does anyone ever break pedestrian lights while on foot? Or to put it the more realistic way, does any NOT break pedestrian lights on foot, and instead wait for 3-5 minutes at every junction when walking through town?

Beasty

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just to stir it up, does anyone ever break pedestrian lights while on foot? Or to put it the more realistic way, does any NOT break pedestrian lights on foot, and instead wait for 3-5 minutes at every junction when walking through town?

I do walk across pedestrian lights on red

Are pedestrians legally obliged to wait for a green pedestrian light (I thought not, but would happily be corrected on this one)?

Clearly pedestrians can cross the road where there is no pedestrian crossing regardless of any other traffic signals (if it is safe to do so - again I don't know if this is enshrined in the legislation)

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

Are pedestrians legally obliged to wait for a green pedestrian light (I thought not, but would happily be corrected on this one)?

Clearly pedestrians can cross the road where there is no pedestrian crossing regardless of any other traffic signals (if it is safe to do so - again I don't know if this is enshrined in the legislation)

I think part of the answer is earlier in this very thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65933622&postcount=58

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

So it's clear from that that you have to use the crossing if you're near it; I assume that some other bit of legislation says that you have to wait for the Green Man. Maybe not. I'm surprised at how lightly legislated some things are.

blorg

It is illegal to cross a pedestrian crossing on red, yes. Yet everyone does it. I suspect even Doozerie. It is legal to walk 15 metres away from the crossing and then cross.

As to the whole "must treat bikes just like cars" idea, I'd look at it another way- traffic lights would be entirely unnecessary in the first place in the absence of motorised traffic. As would innovations like one way streets. So to my mind it makes perfect sense to make exceptions for bicycles where reasonable to do so.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

As to the whole "must treat bikes just like cars" idea, I'd look at it another way- traffic lights would be entirely unnecessary in the first place in the absence of motorised traffic. As would innovations like one way streets.

Traffic lights are entirely unnecessary. Open your mind, man. Those rules of the road, they're like a cage for your soul.

blorg

The point is, these things are there primarily to reduce the danger posed by motorised traffic both to other motorised traffic and other road users. In the absence of cars does anyone think we would actually need traffic lights to keep pedestrians safe from bicycles?

DualFrontDiscs

blorg wrote: »

The point is, these things are there primarily to reduce the danger posed by motorised traffic both to other motorised traffic and other road users. In the absence of cars does anyone think we would actually need traffic lights to keep pedestrians safe from bicycles?

FFS 'Yes'. I do.

DFD.

BostonB

As a a cyclist I've had more near misses from other cyclists than I have other cars. Especially around town. Usually head on, through a junction, or a one way streets. At lights I'm usually checking for the late/early cyclist as much as I am the cars. Seen two or three collisions between pedestrians and cyclists.