1 Year Driving ban for cyclist who broke red light

BostonB

The problem is drivers and cyclists alike, are ignoring the rules because of a lack of enforcement. So it becomes habit.

Travel is good

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Why do you have to turn it into one of those debates? Most cyclists drive too, try turning up to a race and see the car parks fill up. I don't know why you think cycling and driving are mutually exclusive.

Point taken, cyclists are drivers too. Though it seems to me that there are more incidents of some cyclists breaking lights than cars.

DirkVoodoo

Travel is good wrote: »

Point taken, cyclists are drivers too. Though it seems to me that there are more incidents of some cyclists breaking lights than cars.

No, cyclists that I see tend to cruise through lights that have been red for some time, drivers break lights that have gone red. Both dangerous, both unnecessary but traffic tends to notice the cyclist more.

I've seen people breeze through junctions on bikes and nearly get hit by cars, it's ridiculous but if these people are either oblivious to the danger or simply reckless, they won't change. It is up the Gardai to enforce the law. I don't think it is a question of cyclists thinking they are above the law. I think these chaps know the law applies to them, they know they are breaking a red light (without thinking of the consequences) but they do it because they probably tried it once and didn't get stopped. So they did it again, and again, and again.

I can guarantee you that if there was less enforcement for driving people would be doing similar. Look at the N11, cars slow down when they get to the stretch leading up to or away from UCD because that is the only part of the road where the Gardai set up speed traps.

Travel is good

Why are they cruising through lights that are red for some time? Surely a red light is a red light, nothing got to do with how long it is red for?

It's OK, I'm not expecting a reply, got to go now......

Ant

As a road user - cyclist (mostly) and pedestrian (less often) - I too would like to see better enforcement of laws which affect the safety of other road users. e.g. I don't really care if people wear seat belts or not. The consequences of that decision only affects themselves or those who choose to share a car with them.

In this instance, I'd have more sympathy with the driver of the car. It's a traumatic experience to be involved in a motor accident through no fault of her own.

With regard to the sentence, I'd imagine that the injury and trauma of being hit by a car would be enough disincentive for the cyclist not to repeat his mistake. At a guess, the judge may have been trying send out a message to other red light jumpers - though it's hard to know as district court judges aren't always the most rational people.

@shortcircuit, I think it's up to you to make the case why somebody should be compensated for the consequences of their own actions. Why should anyone else "cover damage to bike, loss of pay, etc." That makes no sense. If I choose to engage in a risky activity such as base jumping, I wouldn't expect some other individual or organisation to pay my medical bills if I have an injury as a result. If I inadvertently cause injury to or damage personal possessions of somebody else, I'd feel an obligation to compensate them - not for them to compensate me.

I also find it a bit worrying that high visibility clothing or the lack thereof was brought up in court. The effectiveness of such clothing seems to be vastly over-rated in public opinion.

dave.obrien

@shortcircuit, I'm having troube getting your point. This guy broke the law and got himself injured. You're asking that the law consider the fact that his injury will not be compensated, so he should be given a more lenient punishment? I can't agree with that; had he damaged the car by, say, kicking it, and injured his foot in the process, he would not be receiving compensation from anywhere. To my mind, it's the same thing. With respect to driving insurance, if one claims to cover something like this, ones premium increases and no claims bonus is affected, thus being a punishment in itself. Saying he should be treated more leniently 'cause he was hurt doesn't follow for me.

SleepDoc

Travel is good wrote: »

Most of us drivers have been victim (with near misses) at some stage to cyclists who break the red light.

It's about time that the message goes out there that this type of irresponsible road behaviour is unacceptable. Cyclists should not break red lights, it's extremely dangerous to other road users.

If you are in charge of a bike and you continue in this type of behaviour, then I don't see the problem in the cyclist being punished. If a car driver did this, they would expect to be suitably convicted.

Why are cyclists any different?

Cyclists are different. They weigh less and they go slower. In the event of an accident they don't dent, they break. How many traffic lights would there be if there were no cars?

DirkVoodoo

Travel is good wrote: »

Why are they cruising through lights that are red for some time? Surely a red light is a red light, nothing got to do with how long it is red for?.

I'm not a psychic.

Yes, a red light is a red light, I'm not sure if this is just a statement of fact or if you are attempting to clarify a point made earlier.

My point is, you rarely see cars approach red lights slowly then proceed through the junction at their own discretion. With bikes it is much more common. I have seen it plenty of times: a cyclist treating a red light like a yield (at best, I saw one guy just sail through and not even look).

I'm not sure where else the confusion might lie, I was simply saying everyone breaks red lights, just the manner is different between bikes and cars, however each mode is just as dangerous.

argosy2006

could he just not have fixed red light, how broke was it ,
http://m2.sourcingmap.com/smap/images/item/n/08b/ux_a08040800ux0006_ux_n.jpg only 3.25

Cabaal

Midnight_EG wrote: »

A ban on a license he doesn't have....

Agreed its idiotic,
Now I'll like to announce that everyone that posts in this thread who doesn't have a license to fly a commercial airliner is now banned for 1 year from flying a commercial airliner.

That'll show you all!
:rolleyes:

rubadub

cosman9373 wrote: »

If a car swirved to avoid this pedestrian and crashed should the pedestrian then be banned from driving for a year?

Thats what I was wondering too.

KTRIC wrote: »

Actually not. Its the norm in a lot of other European countries.

Is there any country where pedestrians would lose their driving licence for road offences?

If not....

Travel is good wrote: »

Most of us drivers have been victim (with near misses) at some stage to cyclists who break the red light.

Why are cyclists any different?

Why are pedestrians any different

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

My point is, you rarely see cars approach red lights slowly then proceed through the junction at their own discretion.

+1. I have been in a taxi once in the early morning and he broke a few lights like this. If a garda had spotted him I doubt he would have pulled him over, just like they do not pull over cyclists for a similar "offence". The gardai know what intention the law makers had in mind when making laws -pedantic stubborn bitter arseholes seem blind to this sensible reasoning.

DaveR1

I know i'm going to get my head eaten off here.... But anyway!!!!

I break redlights, always have and always will. But I know anytime I do so, that I am safe. If I have to stop at lights, because it is not safe I will. But if that green man is green I will go. If I am turning left I will go. Not anything stupid or dangerous. I stop when I have to. But this idea of standing at a red light with your bike, and no cars on the road you are turning onto, thats just stupid. Cycling takes long enough. JUST GO!

The guy who crashed into the car was just stupid and obviously had gotten too used to breaking lights. Just stay alert and there is no problem passing through the lights!b

Quazzie

The funny part about this is that he'll have to apply for the learners permit and then when he eventually gets placed at an exam and is lucky enough to pass it, he loses his licence straight away.

GlennaMaddy

DaveR1 wrote: »

I know i'm going to get my head eaten off here.... But anyway!!!!

I break redlights, always have and always will. But I know anytime I do so, that I am safe. If I have to stop at lights, because it is not safe I will. But if that green man is green I will go. If I am turning left I will go. Not anything stupid or dangerous. I stop when I have to. But this idea of standing at a red light with your bike, and no cars on the road you are turning onto, thats just stupid. Cycling takes long enough. JUST GO!

The guy who crashed into the car was just stupid and obviously had gotten too used to breaking lights. Just stay alert and there is no problem passing through the lights!b

Don't you realise or don't you care that your behaviour results in the rest of us being painted with the same brush as you, and that results in driver agression towards us?

niceonetom

I obey traffic lights but...

...those in the anti-light-breaking wing have to admit that breaking the lights cannot simultaneously be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as they claim. It it were then every junction in Dublin would be knee deep in dead cyclists. Either it's not actually very dangerous or it doesn't happen... it clearly does happen, probably as often as not at many junctions, so we are forced to conclude that breaking the lights is, in reality, fairly safe. This is because most people do not want to die on the way to work. Who'd a thunk.

So why not do it?

Well, 'on principle', I suppose. I think that arguing that cyclists should follow the law re: lights for PR reasons and on the basis of 'fairness' is more intellectually honest and reasonable than immediately bringing safety/recklessness into it. That's a canard.

I think we should, on the whole, obey the law. But I also think the law should be augmented to allow cyclists a greater degree of legal freedom on the roads by, for example, allowing left turning cyclists to treat red lights as yield signs. More suitable rules, more stringently enforced would be better than the stringent rules completely unenforced that we have right now.

I see no value or truth in the assertion that all road users must obey identical rules regardless of mode of use: it's ideology unhindered by pragmatism. Many jurisdictions impose more stringent rules of HGVs than on other users (banned form certain areas, lower speed limits etc.), the same thinking should apply at the other end of the size spectrum.

arybvtcw0eolkf

DaveR1 wrote: »

I know i'm going to get my head eaten off here.... But anyway!!!!

I break redlights, always have and always will. But I know anytime I do so, that I am safe. If I have to stop at lights, because it is not safe I will. But if that green man is green I will go. If I am turning left I will go. Not anything stupid or dangerous. I stop when I have to. But this idea of standing at a red light with your bike, and no cars on the road you are turning onto, thats just stupid. Cycling takes long enough. JUST GO!

The guy who crashed into the car was just stupid and obviously had gotten too used to breaking lights. Just stay alert and there is no problem passing through the lights!b

So you expect other's to take responsiblity for your safety!.. Good stuff :rolleyes:

Like other's there, I'm also a cyclist (and a motorist too) and I've to suffer the wrath of driver's for your behaviour.

Beats me why your type whizz past me, through red lights and stare like I'm the fool!.

But to the topic, I think its fair that the cyclist got a driving ban for one year. And whilst I can understand the confusion it causes some because he wasn't driving a car, 'nor does he own on, he's still subject to the same rules of the road as the rest of us.

However after spending ten years in prison this idiot probably holds any rules in scant regard.

Stark

niceonetom wrote: »

I obey traffic lights but...

...those in the anti-light-breaking wing have to admit that breaking the lights cannot simultaneously be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as they claim. It it were then every junction in Dublin would be knee deep in dead cyclists. Either it's not actually very dangerous or it doesn't happen... it clearly does happen, probably as often as not at many junctions, so we are forced to conclude that breaking the lights is, in reality, fairly safe. This is because most people do not want to die on the way to work. Who'd a thunk.

So why not do it?

Well, 'on principle', I suppose. I think that arguing that cyclists should follow the law re: lights for PR reasons and on the basis of 'fairness' is more intellectually honest and reasonable than immediately bringing safety/recklessness into it. That's a canard.

While I do break the odd red light myself, and do so safely imo (passing through empty pedestrian crossing, turning left on red when there's nothing coming etc.), I do also see complete idiots saunter straight through red into a stream of oncoming traffic on a regular basis and it's only for the traffic taking evasive action that they don't get crushed. Usually some eejit wobbling along on a MTB with semi-inflated tyres.

Of course, I also see cars sailing through lights that have just gone red on a regular basis and yesterday cycling through town on a Sunday, I saw more cars breaking the lights than cyclists including one who broke the lights while taking an illegal right turn. Probably because the traffic was quieter and they weren't stuck behind other traffic at the lights. (That said there has been the odd occasion where I've been sitting at the lights and someone has actually overtaken me in order to go through on red).

eightyfish

Ant wrote: »

In this instance, I'd have more sympathy with the driver of the car. It's a traumatic experience to be involved in a motor accident through no fault of her own.

+1

A friend witnessed an accident on Friday in Dublin where a girl did exactly the same thing. Cruising through a red light went against the traffic on a one-way street and catapulted herself across the bonnet of an oncoming car. After getting up, someone took her bike away and the driver drove her to hospital.

On my commute this morning, every single cyclist that passed me did so while I was stopped at red lights.

20goto10

don't cycle much anymore myself but when I did I would always break red lights at every safe opportunity. Having said that, I would have no problem facing the consequences if I were caught. And it's not the same as a car breaking a red light and you all know it.

Also, I don't know what rules of the road people go by but a green light does not mean "go, and to hell with anything that gets in your way". It means go if it is safe to do so. Clearly this woman was not looking where she was going. It's irrelavent whether the cyclist was breaking the rules or not, she should have been looking and to say she had a green light so that makes it ok to knock down a cyclist is the typical anti-cyclist bullsh!t a cyclist faces on a daily basis.

One thing I cannot stand as a pedestrian is cyclists sailing through red lights when there are pedestrians crossing. It's common with couriers in town, I've actually slapped a guy in the back if the helmet as he's passed me right in front of me. He gave me a glance and an f-you but didn't even stop. He knew damn well he deserved a box.

niceonetom

niceonetom wrote: »

I obey traffic lights but...

...those in the anti-light-breaking wing have to admit that breaking the lights cannot simultaneously be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as they claim. It it were then every junction in Dublin would be knee deep in dead cyclists. Either it's not actually very dangerous or it doesn't happen... it clearly does happen, probably as often as not at many junctions, so we are forced to conclude that breaking the lights is, in reality, fairly safe. This is because most people do not want to die on the way to work. Who'd a thunk.

So why not do it?

Well, 'on principle', I suppose. I think that arguing that cyclists should follow the law re: lights for PR reasons and on the basis of 'fairness' is more intellectually honest and reasonable than immediately bringing safety/recklessness into it. That's a canard.

I think we should, on the whole, obey the law. But I also think the law should be augmented to allow cyclists a greater degree of legal freedom on the roads by, for example, allowing left turning cyclists to treat red lights as yield signs. More suitable rules, more stringently enforced would be better than the stringent rules completely unenforced that we have right now.

I see no value or truth in the assertion that all road users must obey identical rules regardless of mode of use: it's ideology unhindered by pragmatism. Many jurisdictions impose more stringent rules of HGVs than on other users (banned form certain areas, lower speed limits etc.), the same thinking should apply at the other end of the size spectrum.

Excellent points, well made.

cdaly_

Travel is good wrote: »

Why are they cruising through lights that are red for some time? Surely a red light is a red light, nothing got to do with how long it is red for?

Well, it kinda matters in different ways for cyclists and drivers.

A cyclist approaching a red light has to stop and then put in an amount of effort to get going again while a driver has to stop and then just press a pedal or two to get going again. The cyclist therefore has more incentive to jump the red light an any stage.

A driver approaching a light as it changes to orange/red will typically jump the light on the tail of the cars in front 'cos they know the cross traffic won't get going for a few seconds. They have the incentive to do so then but not later when the light is already red.

FWIW, I see cars running red lights at almost every junction and at almost every red light on the tail end of the cars in front basis.

Vélo

BostonB wrote: »

Replace the cyclist with a driver with no insurance. Who would they claim off then?

They claim off the Motor Insurance Bureau. There's a 3% govt levy on policies to cover people against uninsured/stolen vehicles.

Doctor Bob

Re cars breaking lights, this study was submitted to the Young Scientist Exhibition a few years ago.

As I understand it (from a dim memory of the coverage on Morning Ireland), they determined if a car broke the lights by a combination of speed limit and stopping distance, i.e. there is a point a certain distance behind the stop line, and any car behind that point (travelling at or below the speed limit) when the lights go amber should stop at the red light.

Edit: I've often thought I'd like to do a similar survey for vehicles encroaching on the Advanced Stop Line box.

cdaly_

V&#233 wrote: »

They claim off the Motor Insurance Bureau.

Only if they have no suitable cover of their own. When my car was hit by an un-insured driver, the Bureau would not pay because I had comp cover of my own...

BostonB

Vélo wrote: »

They claim off the Motor Insurance Bureau. There's a 3% govt levy on policies to cover people against uninsured/stolen vehicles.

I thought they only pay the victim.

Stark

cdaly_ wrote:

Only if they have no suitable cover of their own. When my car was hit by an un-insured driver, the Bureau would not pay because I had comp cover of my own...

If you have comprehensive insurance, you're supposed to claim off your own policy but your insurance company is then supposed to claim off the MIBI so you get to keep your no claims bonus.

Vélo

BostonB wrote: »

I thought they only pay the victim.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. It is just the victim.

Run_to_da_hills

I witniss cyclists on Dublin Bikes breaking traffic lights all the time. Are these exempt from the rules of the road?

If someone is caught breaking traffic lights and other rules of the road they should be banned from using them.

munchkin_utd

rubadub wrote: »

Thats what I was wondering too.

Is there any country where pedestrians would lose their driving licence for road offences?

If not....

Why are pedestrians any different

In Germany it would be more than possible to loose your licence through road offenses as a pedestrian, especially if drink is involved.

The legal background is the same as seems to be in Ireland. If you are mixing it in traffic then you have to behave responsibily and follow the law. And if you show that you arent one to follow the road traffic laws, then you get punished in an according way.

For example, I'm on probation now for a german driving licence (for the first 2 years)
A red light violation as a pedestrian is considered the same as on a bike or in the car. You've broken the road traffic act and thats just it!
And a couple of these Category 1 offences and my licence is gone. (I dont have the exact rules to hand but I dont intend needing to find out!)

My genetic propensity as an irish person to J-walk is being kept well in trim these days I can tell you!!

Capt'n Midnight

Amalgam wrote: »

Some alarm bells ringing over the confusion about the hi-vis clothing.

Was the car grey or was it a hi-vis colour ?
Did the car have headlights on ?


All road users have to look out for conflict. As has been pointed out hi-vis / helmet are not legal requirements and are as relevant as the colour of the car.

CramCycle

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I witniss cyclists on Dublin Bikes breaking traffic lights all the time. Are these exempt from the rules of the road?

If someone is caught breaking traffic lights and other rules of the road they should be banned from using them.

A good idea but if every user who broke lights on a DB was banned, total native users would equal zero.

monument

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I witniss cyclists on Dublin Bikes breaking traffic lights all the time. Are these exempt from the rules of the road?

If someone is caught breaking traffic lights and other rules of the road they should be banned from using them.

I witness motorists in cars, vans, trucks etc breaking traffic lights all the time [mainly orange lights, often a bit of red too]. Are these exempt from the rules of the road?

If someone is caught breaking traffic lights and other rules of the road they should be banned from using them.

[Of course, I don't believe the above, just showing how silly the previous statement is in context]

rubadub

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If someone is caught breaking traffic lights and other rules of the road they should be banned from using them.

Are you joking? the country would come to a standstill as almost every person would be banned from using the roads. I have actually witnessed a garda assisting/aiding and abetting schoolchildren to jaywalk across the N11, right under a pedestrian flyover which was being used by other children. A FOAF was done for jay walking in this same spot. Pedestrians are by far the worst offenders of breaking rules of the road.

Do you yourself always carry a torch at night when out walking? should you be banned from driving if you are caught without your torch? You do realise the rules of the road say you should carry one.

munchkin_utd wrote: »

In Germany it would be more than possible to loose your licence through road offenses as a pedestrian

Aha, I always wondered about what was going in in Germany when I visited once, the roads were completely empty and everybody was still standing at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the green man. My mate went to walk and I pulled him back, it was really eerie, like they were robots or something, all standing perfectly still in front of this empty road. I was wondering if they had seen some undercover cop or something or if there were massive fines for breaking the lights.

Lumen

rubadub wrote: »

I always wondered about what was going in in Germany when I visited once, the roads were completely empty and everybody was still standing at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the green man. My mate went to walk and I pulled him back, it was really eerie, like they were robots or something, all standing perfectly still in front of this empty road.

Ah, I feel the Godwin moment coming closer. About time too, we're on page 6 already.

liamo

This is so ridiculous that I assume it's a troll but ... ho-hum, let's bite ....

20goto10 wrote: »

Also, I don't know what rules of the road people go by but a green light does not mean "go, and to hell with anything that gets in your way". It means go if it is safe to do so.

From the rules of the road :
"A green light means you may go on if the way is clear. ......A green light is not a right of way, it is a licence to proceed with caution."

I assume that the way was clear as the driver approached the junction. I further assume that the collision occured because the cyclist crossed the junction in a manner that prevented the driver from avoiding a collision.


While we're on the rules of the road, let's see another extract :
"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."

Which part of that extract is hard to understand? Which part of it says "... unless you don't think the red light applies to you ..."?

Clearly this woman was not looking where she was going

<sigh>

It's irrelavent whether the cyclist was breaking the rules or not, she should have been looking and to say she had a green light so that makes it ok to knock down a cyclist is the typical anti-cyclist bullsh!t a cyclist faces on a daily basis.

1. Yes, it's relevant
2. I'm sure she was as observant as she should have been
3. No-one says it's ok to knock down anyone
4. I'm a cyclist and don't face "typical anti-cyclist bullsh!t"


This is pretty simple and it isn't a cyclist versus motorist debate. It doesn't matter whether he was a cyclist or a driver. He broke the law and acted in a manner that caused the collision. All he had to do was observe the rules of the road, or even just apply some common sense and a little observation and the collision would not have occurred.

Road users are expected to be observant and vigilant and to obey the rules of the road. It's not unreasonable for a road user to assume that other road users will be applying common sense to their use of the road and won't break a red light and move out in front of approaching traffic.

Clearly this wasn't the case with the cyclist. To then say that the driver is at fault because the a) cyclist broke the law, b) put himself and other road users in danger and c) failed to observe an approaching vehicle is simply ridiculous.

fconno316

Cyclists are a curse on Irish roads they are a law on to themselves. personally i think the ban wasn't enough

on the side not, if cyclists want to use the roads they should be made to pay tax and insurance

eightyfish

fconno316 wrote: »

Cyclists are a curse on Irish roads they are a law on to themselves. personally i think the ban wasn't enough

on the side not, if cyclists want to use the roads they should be made to pay tax and insurance

You realise you've posted that in the Cycling forum? Good luck with that argument.

Oink

fconno316 wrote: »

Cyclists are a curse on Irish roads they are a law on to themselves.

That's quite a sweeping statement there isn't it. I'm sorry to say that unfortunately irresponsible idiots are not confined to one type of vehicle. If only.

SerialComplaint

fconno316 wrote: »

on the side not, if cyclists want to use the roads they should be made to pay tax and insurance

Do you check their P60s as they cycle past you in traffic? If you did, you would find that they generally do pay tax already. Some of them pay insurance too. Some of them even have (hold it, shock horror coming soon) cars!

ThisRegard

Ha Ha, the oul mutually exclusive argument comes out again. I'm going to call Dublin City Council and demand a motor tax refund on our two cars for the last couple of years and tell them they won't be getting paid in the future.

If they ask why I'll tell them because someone on the interweb named fconno316 believes cyclists don't already so it must be true.

They're all coming out of the woodwork for this thread.

BostonB

fconno316 wrote: »

Cyclists are a curse on Irish roads they are a law on to themselves. personally i think the ban wasn't enough

on the side not, if cyclists want to use the roads they should be made to pay tax and insurance

You'll have to back that up with stats.

For all the breaking of traffic laws, I can't imagine, they cause many accidents. Simply because there isn't that many relative to other traffic.

fconno316

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Do you check their P60s as they cycle past you in traffic? If you did, you would find that they generally do pay tax already. Some of them pay insurance too. Some of them even have (hold it, shock horror coming soon) cars!

if you have two cars, each car must be taxed and insured separately other wise they cannot be on the road.
what i'm saying is that if you own a bike you should be taxed (a bike tax or something) and have insurance if you want to use the roads.

fconno316

fconno316 wrote: »

if you have two cars, each car must be taxed and insured separately other wise they cannot be on the road.
what i'm saying is that if you own a bike you should be taxed (a bike tax or something) and have insurance if you want to use the roads.

seamus

fconno316 wrote: »

what i'm saying is that if you own a bike you should be taxed (a bike tax or something) and have insurance if you want to use the roads.

On what basis?
Cars are currently taxed on the basis on engine size/emmissions. Tax bikes on the same basis == no engine, no emissions, no tax.

Insurance is compulsory only for third party collisions and only for those who are licenced to drive the vehicle. So licencing for bikes? You'd be happy to require a 5-year-old to carry out a cycling test, obtain a licence and have his parents pay for insurance before he's allowed cycle around in circles in your local estate?

How many people have been injured/suffered losses through collisions with cyclists in the last year?

alfalad

fconno316 wrote: »

if you have two cars, each car must be taxed and insured separately other wise they cannot be on the road.
what i'm saying is that if you own a bike you should be taxed (a bike tax or something) and have insurance if you want to use the roads.

What if you walk on the roads? Should you be taxed and insured if you use the roads for walking?

Stark

fconno316 wrote: »

if you have two cars, each car must be taxed and insured separately other wise they cannot be on the road.
what i'm saying is that if you own a bike you should be taxed (a bike tax or something) and have insurance if you want to use the roads.

You pay "motor tax", not "road tax". The funding for roads comes from the general income tax pool and EU funding. So everyone pays for the roads regardless of whether they own a car or not. Likewise the money you pay for your car is not ring fenced for roads. Your argument is about as idiotic as saying only smokers should be allowed use the health service as they pay tax on cigarettes.

That thread in after hours is a disgrace.

Back to the topic, am I the only one who was taught to approach a green light with caution and to look both ways before going through it for nutters breaking the red light ?

seamus

RoverJames wrote: »

Back to the topic, am I the only one who was taught to approach a green light with caution and to look both ways before going through it for nutters breaking the red light ?

Yes.

And this is the primary reason why breaking a red light is far more dangerous than crossing an uncontrolled junction and why a Chinese man was killed last year in Harold's cross.

Imagine you're approaching an uncontrolled crossroads, it's about 200m in front of you. You are on the primary road, so have right of way over traffic coming from either the left or right. There's a car waiting to emerge from the junction on the left.
You will approach with caution, you may slow down, or at the very least you may move out towards the right and ease off the accelerator a bit, just in case the guy decides to go in front of you, which is a very real possibility.

Now stick lights at the junction. Your lights are green and you have about 50m to go until you hit them. By and large, the odds of the guy emerging from the left in contravention of the red light are very, very small. Here in Ireland although amber-gambling is rife, we are extremely adherent to hard reds. You will almost never see a driver come up to a red light and continue on through, unless they've made a serious mistake and not spotted it.

So we're somewhat spoiled and whenever we are proceeding through a controlled junction where we have the green light, we very rarely consider the possibility that another car will break the lights. It just doesn't happen all that often. In fact, the reason I slow down at a set of lights more often than not is to give myself time to react if the lights go amber. The possibility of someone coming through the junction against the red light is so low that I rarely consider it.

So when a cyclist does it, not only are they likely to scare the crap out of a driver, but they're also likely to end up in trouble because a car coming from the right (or left) is usually not prepared to stop.

Yes they should be, but it's a side-effect of our relatively law-abiding driving. In countries where you have a right/left turn on red law, I imagine people are more cautious coming through junctions because there's always the chance that someone may pull out in front of you.

Perhaps that's a good reason to legalise turning left on red?

I see a green light as a proceed with caution indicator to be honest, I would imagine I'm not alone either despite your claim.

Chips Lovell

DaveR1 wrote: »

I break redlights, always have and always will. But I know anytime I do so, that I am safe.

I'm assuming that the guy we're discussing also thought he was safe. I doubt if he intended to hit that car.

niceonetom wrote: »

...those in the anti-light-breaking wing have to admit that breaking the lights cannot simultaneously be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as they claim. It it were then every junction in Dublin would be knee deep in dead cyclists. Either it's not actually very dangerous or it doesn't happen... it clearly does happen, probably as often as not at many junctions, so we are forced to conclude that breaking the lights is, in reality, fairly safe. This is because most people do not want to die on the way to work. Who'd a thunk.

I think most idiotic road behaviour doesn't automatically result in accidents. There's plenty of motorists who regularly speed, drink and drive etc. who avoid accidents. It still doesn't make it a good idea.