1 Year Driving ban for cyclist who broke red light

SerialComplaint

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.

I presume you're in favour of a 'pedestrian tax' or something to cover the costs of all those pesky footpaths and crossings, and a 'walk in the park tax' or something to cover the costs of all those nice parks we enjoy at weekend, and a 'swim in the sea tax' or something to cover the costs of maintaining beaches etc?

Or perhaps you are just trying to create division where no division exists with some ill-thought out nonsense that you heard from George Hook or Ivan Yeates?

SerialComplaint

seamus wrote: »

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.

You're joking - right? Every day on my commute I see drivers who take the amber as 'speed up and scoot through' and end up driving right through red lights. It is not unusual for me to head off on the first sign of green and find myself facing a car/jeep coming at speed through the red lights right at me. Spend some time at the junction of Sandford Rd/Marlboro Rd in Ranalagh any morning to see what I mean.

Stark

How often do you come up to a junction where the light has been green for a while and a car decides to ignore the light which is already red on their side when they approach the junction?

I sold a car to a chap 3 years ago, few months later his girlfriend was killed by a drunk driver who went through a red light. It happens.

As I said earlier I was taught to glance both ways approaching and going through green lights. I thought everyone did this.
(please no smart arse comments about everyone obviously doesn't referring to the first comment I made in this post)

seamus

SerialComplaint wrote: »

You're joking - right? Every day on my commute I see drivers who take the amber as 'speed up and scoot through' and end up driving right through red lights. It is not unusual for me to head off on the first sign of green and find myself facing a car/jeep coming at speed through the red lights right at me. Spend some time at the junction of Sandford Rd/Marlboro Rd in Ranalagh any morning to see what I mean.

Is that not what I said though - plenty of amber gamblers, but otherwise people stop when the light is a hard red? There's quite a big difference between speeding up when you see an amber, hitting it when it goes red, and actually just sailing through a red light. You see plenty of the former, but very little (or none) of the latter.

RoverJames wrote: »

As I said earlier I was taught to glance both ways approaching and going through green lights. I thought everyone did this.

Surely you can see from driving on the roads that very few people do this? When's the last time you saw someone slow down as they approached a green light, look both ways, and then speed up again? Nobody does this. Think about the N3/Belgard Rd junction - cars blasting through at 80km/h+; Nobody slows down and looks both ways.

In Ireland, green lights aren't treated as "yield" signs, they're treated as if there's a physical barrier between you and the traffic on the left/right.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

When's the last time you saw someone slow down as they approached a green light, look both ways, and then speed up again? Nobody does this. Think about the N3/Belgard Rd junction - cars blasting through at 80km/h+; Nobody slows down and looks both ways.

In Ireland, green lights aren't treated as "yield" signs, they're treated as if there's a physical barrier between you and the traffic on the left/right.

No need to slow down to have an each way glance unless you are speeding too. I wasn't near the Belgard Road in years (thanks be to f***).

antidark777

None of this would have happened if Ireland had cycle lanes like other european countries.
What can be equally bad is when a cyclist uses the footpath as a means to traffic and red lights. I've been clipped four times by cyclists speeding past from behind while i've been walking along :mad:

Stark

antidark777 wrote: »

None of this would have happened if Ireland had cycle lanes like other european countries.
What can be equally bad is when a cyclist uses the footpath as a means to traffic and red lights. I've been clipped four times by cyclists speeding past from behind while i've been walking along :mad:

Maybe you were walking along one of those "shared pedestrian and cyclist" paths like the one on Samuel Beckett Bridge

I don't see why you need a cycle lane in order to obey a red light. You're still going to have to negotiate junctions even with cycle lanes in place.

DirkVoodoo

Stark wrote: »

Maybe you were walking along one of those "shared pedestrian and cyclist" paths like the one on Samuel Beckett Bridge

I don't see why you need a cycle lane in order to obey a red light. You're still going to have to negotiate junctions even with cycle lanes in place.

I was thinking something similar. Maybe I have just been lucky, but as a pedestrian I have never been hit by a bike in Dublin. Getting hit 4 times to me sounds a bit high. As a cyclist I've nearly hit a fair few (actually hit one who jumped off a bus) and it's always been because they wander into cycle paths, step off kerbs, jaywalk, etc.

antidark777

Stark wrote: »

Maybe you were walking along one of those "shared pedestrian and cyclist" paths like the one on Samuel Beckett Bridge

I don't see why you need a cycle lane in order to obey a red light. You're still going to have to negotiate junctions even with cycle lanes in place.

Not everywhere is the same as Dublin city mate, cycle lanes are virtually nonexistant in other cities yet it doesnt stop cyclists treating the footpaths like its theirs, thats all im saying.

I live in waterford city and it happens all the time

cdaly_

seamus wrote: »

Is that not what I said though - plenty of amber gamblers, but otherwise people stop when the light is a hard red? There's quite a big difference between speeding up when you see an amber, hitting it when it goes red, and actually just sailing through a red light. You see plenty of the former, but very little (or none) of the latter.

But it's not just a matter of failing to get past the light while it's amber. There's a habitual running the red (by 2 or 3 cars) at low speed on the tail of the 2 cars that ran the amber. All 5 of these cars were going slow enough to (and are supposed to) stop at the lights.

I see this behaviour multiple times per day. That's not amber-gambling, that's running a red...

seamus

No need to slow down to have an each way glance unless you are speeding too. I wasn't near the Belgard Road in years (thanks be to f***).

The speed limit on the N3 outbound is (afair) 80km/h. This junction is set up in such a way that you cannot see down the Belgard road (on your left) until you're almost in the junction. If at that point you're doing 80km/h, and someone comes from the Belgard road, through the red light, you haven't a hope. To take a proper look and make sure it's safe to go, you'd need to slow down below 60km/h and be prepared to stop. Nobody does this.

While in the strictest sense, yes you should ensure that nobody is coming from either side before proceeding through a green light, it doesn't always match up with the practicalities.
Particularly late at night in Dublin city, where buildings obscure your view and you can move at a fairly constant 50km/h, at every junction you would need to slow right down to 20km/h or less, look left and right to make sure no-one is coming through at 50km/h from either side and then proceed on through.

I can say with absolute certainty that 99% of drivers do not do this.

cdaly_ wrote: »

I see this behaviour multiple times per day. That's not amber-gambling, that's running a red...

Technically yes, but for the purposes of my point, I was lump it in with ambler-gambling/chancing your arm. *cry*
Our light sequences and the way we drive even compensates for people doing just this.

My point being as Stark said - if you're approaching a green light and the traffic on your left has a red light and has had it for more than five seconds, we do not expect anyone to break that light because they very rarely do.

And this is what creates the danger for cyclists breaking red lights.

Capt'n Midnight

BostonB wrote: »

You'll have to back that up with stats.

Look up the NRA site.
In the past up to 98% of motorists were speeding on urban link roads when there was no traffic to slow them down
IIRC the most recent stats showed that ~91% of trucks were speeding on motorways.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

The damage a vehicle does to the road increases far faster than the weight. A HGV will do 1,000 times as much damage as a car. On that basis bikes would be free. On emissions bikes would be free.

The reason you don't need insurance / license for a bike is that it is not mechanically propelled and only move when you push it, unlike a car which can go by itself.


Every taxpayer in the state paid for the M50 toll bridge , and other NRA projects that only motorists with full licenses can use. - If anyone says that they use goods and services I'll remind you again the HGV's are subsidised compared to the damage they do to roads.

Capt'n Midnight

antidark777 wrote: »

None of this would have happened if Ireland had cycle lanes like other european countries.
What can be equally bad is when a cyclist uses the footpath as a means to traffic and red lights. I've been clipped four times by cyclists speeding past from behind while i've been walking along :mad:

Most collisions (~70%) happen at junctions. Cycle lanes don't help there , and in many cases actually make it worse for the cyclist by taking away right of way or by moving them off to one side where motorists may not be expecting them

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

To take a proper look and make sure it's safe to go, you'd need to slow down below 60km/h and be prepared to stop. Nobody does this.

Traffic lights means you should be doing no more than 60Km/h through them - because you may have to stop.

Particularly late at night in Dublin city, where buildings obscure your view and you can move at a fairly constant 50km/h, at every junction you would need to slow right down to 20km/h or less, look left and right to make sure no-one is coming through at 50km/h from either side and then proceed on through.

I can say with absolute certainty that 99% of drivers do not do this.

http://www.nra.ie/News/PressReleases/2004/htmltext,2455,en.html

nevermind slowing down back in 2002 99% of drivers EXCEEDED the 30mph limit when free speed was measured.

amused2death

what other "minor infraction" had this individual that landed him with a 10 year prison sentence?. One wonders how is his cycling behaviour nowadays after his experience nutting a car window? Some how I imagine it is not the 1 year driving ban that will influence his change in behaviour but the "learning to fly" experience.

Nuttzz

I'd have given a 1 year ban too, just for wearing that t-shirt