Do you stop at traffic lights?

unionman

chakattack wrote: »

There's no honour in winning a commuter race by breaking lights.....

el tonto wrote: »

FYP

No honour. Just two seconds of grim satisfaction.

Still about my level...sadly...:o

doozerie

RobBaxter wrote: »

lol - people seem to be getting touchy now... there will never be a truck to take me out of it because I check before I break the lights, use them as yield signs. Nothing dangerous about it.

Many people are involved in collisions, or near misses, because they don't register any other traffic when they look before putting themselves and/or others in the way of harm. There is even a phrase for it - in fact there are several of them and some of them even have their own acronym for the lazy. They include LBDNS ("Looked But Did Not See") and SMIDSY ("Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You").

Some of these situations arise due to various environmental factors such as the front windscreen pillars in cars (and here), but of course human fallibility is also a factor regardless of environment (as discussed here). And then, of course, many people just see what they want to see and for example the later they are running for an appointment the bigger and safer those small gaps in moving traffic they chose to believe to be. One classic example of the latter is the driver trying to argue that the tree they collided with "appeared out of nowhere". Sure, there is nothing dangerous about trees...

petethedrummer

Sure the roads are safe now. Cast off your helmets and ride through those red lights: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0622/breaking29.html

PandyAndy

stop?

petethedrummer wrote: »

Sure the roads are safe now. Cast off your helmets and ride through those red lights: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0622/breaking29.html

Yay! Ignore all my previous posts

/puts on blindfold and cycles through red lights!

:D:D

Alkers

stop if it is busy?

doozerie wrote: »

Many people are involved in collisions, or near misses, because they don't register any other traffic when they look before putting themselves and/or others in the way of harm. There is even a phrase for it - in fact there are several of them and some of them even have their own acronym for the lazy. They include LBDNS ("Looked But Did Not See") and SMIDSY ("Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You").

Some of these situations arise due to various environmental factors such as the front windscreen pillars in cars (and here), but of course human fallibility is also a factor regardless of environment (as discussed here). And then, of course, many people just see what they want to see and for example the later they are running for an appointment the bigger and safer those small gaps in moving traffic they chose to believe to be. One classic example of the latter is the driver trying to argue that the tree they collided with "appeared out of nowhere". Sure, there is nothing dangerous about trees...

More often than not it's car drivers who miss the motorbike or the cyclist, not the motorbike or cyclist who misses the oncoming car and then goes through the red light.

RoundTower

stop?

blorg wrote: »

I know a good number who selected always stop behave similarly BTW, at least when they have been cycling with me

I knew people here didn't really tell the truth about this!

I cycle through red lights when it is sensible to do so, and I really don't give a **** if it means some jealous taxi driver has one extra thing to moan about.

adamski8

stop?

Stark wrote: »

Well that's not true. Plenty of people have been crushed by large vehicles turning left just as the light turns green after stopping at red lights. Had they proceeded through while the light was still red, they'd still be alive today.

el tonto wrote: »

Had they not gone up the inside of a HGV, they'd still be safe. And you don't need to break a red light to do that.

Thats one of my main reasons for breaking lights, i dont care what anyone else thinks of me and the fact that its gets me to my destination quicker rarely matters but too often when stopped at red lights a driver taking a left will try mow me down even though im clearly visible, for me its usually avoiding this all together but breaking the light and crossing the junction before them.

Gavin

adamski8 wrote: »

Thats one of my main reasons for breaking lights, i dont care what anyone else thinks of me and the fact that its gets me to my destination quicker rarely matters but too often when stopped at red lights a driver taking a left will try mow me down even though im clearly visible, for me its usually avoiding this all together but breaking the light and crossing the junction before them.

You either pull in front of the first vehicle, or get in line two or three cars from the front. Makes it much easier to get across a junction as you can maintain the same speed as the cars

doozerie

Simona1986 wrote: »

More often than not it's car drivers who miss the motorbike or the cyclist, not the motorbike or cyclist who misses the oncoming car and then goes through the red light.

The whole point is that it is humans that are prone to not seeing other road users when they look, regardless of whether they are cycling a bike, driving a car, etc. And in this case other road users includes other cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road.

In fact, over the last few years I have witnessed, and been subjected to, more moronic and obnoxious behaviour by cyclists than motorists. More and more cyclists seem to view pedestrians and other cyclists as an inconvenience and just people "in their way" and they fully expect those other people to get out of their way regardless of the circumstances. Basically, many cyclists treat pedestrians and other cyclists in exactly the same way that cyclists have for years complained they have been treated by motorists. Apparently as a group we just don't get irony.

Incidentally, in case my posts are mistaken for my expressing some concern for cyclists that break red lights and throw themselves under traffic, I should clarify that I simply don't care if such people choose to become roadkill. What I do care about is that I might be the one that they launch themselves in front of and although I'm all for natural selection the prospect of removing a skewered idiot from my bar ends doesn't appeal to me a whole lot.

limklad

Lumen wrote: »

The system of traffic signals is designed to create a more predictable environment to allow faster traffic flows.

I disagree with this statement. It has been proven in Newcastle West despite numerous expensive studies commissioned by Limerick County Council over the last 5 years that the Lights on the Main Road N21 near the bridge must be left Flashing Amber.

Eventually the Guards ordered Limerick County Council last winter to put the lights on continuous flashing amber as they always causing traffic problems and was a hazard for Guards, fire brigade and Ambulance in getting to accidents. The Guards were sick of doing traffic duty at the lights to clear the traffic logjam created by the lights. The Traffic Lights were finally removed last month.


Limerick City Council stated during the planning of the Limerick Tunnel 5 Years ago, that they will put in extra Traffic Lights on the the main routes through the city on junction a year before the tunnel open to force an attitude on drivers to use the Tunnel and pay that toll rather than continuously drive through the city to avoid paying the Toll.

happy_73

Just wondering, of the people who don't stop - how many are parents that cycle with their kids and jump red lights with them?

My daughter is only 15 months old so can only be in her bike seat but I know that when she is out on her bike with me I'll be telling her to stop at red lights.

S

Malari

I stop.

It adds to my feeling of righteous indignation when I give out to motorists who are committing other road offenses and putting my life in danger. :cool:

limklad

Personally I think it p*g ignorant when cyclist complain about motorised vehicles poor driving when they themselves break the rules of the road.

Rules of the road while inconvenient to must of us in getting to our destinations quickly is designed for Saftely for all of us to our destinations and back home safe to our families and friends, where we can enjoy our short lives.

When I was a Teenager and early twenties, I cycled practically everywhere. I too had to obey the rules of the road for safely reasons and to use it to badger unruly drivers to their poor driving when they complain. I was also painfully aware that serious accidents restricted my freedom and saw far too many people seriously hurt and left disabled for life and many of these people that were hurt believe that they could easily avoid the dangers and had previously and wrongly believed that the rules of the road did not applied to them.
I was also very aware then that any offences that I was caught with breaking that it would be endorsed to my future drivers licence. That was 10- 20 years ago.

Personally I think for safety reasons, that Schools both Primary and Secondary under social studies should be teaching the rules of the road for kids as they are both pedestrians as well as cyclists.

On the spot fines for breaking Traffic lights/pedestrians crossing rules should be used and to allow parking inspectors to issue them since they already patrolling the streets giving out parking tickets.

frant2

stop?

I think Lumen is spot on

1. Obey the traffic signals as you are required to do by law.
2. Treat the signal as a yield and proceed when you consider it safe.

I fall into the No. 2 camp

However the Guards seem to be more aware of us now since the numbers of bikes increased, so I think its only a matter of time before they make an example of a few - Anybody know what the Guards take is on option 2.

omalleyb

frant2 wrote: »

... its only a matter of time before they make an example of a few - Anybody know what the Guards take is on option 2.

Injured cyclist gets driving ban for breaking red light

That's clarified it nicely for us.

Stark

Well he didn't exactly proceed when safe.

buffalo

Presumably he proceeded when he considered it safe though. It's the crucial point.

Stark

buffalo wrote: »

Presumably he proceeded when he considered it safe though. It's the crucial point.

I'd say he gave it as much thought as a fly does before it goes through a windscreen. I see his type all the time and they never show any attention towards their surroundings.

Malari

buffalo wrote: »

Presumably he proceeded when he considered it safe though. It's the crucial point.

I think many cyclists consider it "safe enough", which is not the same thing. I've seen guys do really dumb things in the hope that the traffic is in their favour, but you couldn't call that safe, it's more like a calculated risk!

ednwireland

the only problem i have is when lights dont change because the induction loop doesnt pick up cyclist you could be sat there for a while waiting for a car to come and trigger the lights, mind you not an issue at peak times, but when i used to cycle everywhere in the uk i would usually go over to the pedestrian crossing instead

Hungrycol

What's the difference between:

stop only if it is very unsafe?
stop if it is busy?

Surely if it is busy it is unsafe?

Some lights I jump some lights I stop at.

adamski8

stop?

Gavin wrote: »

You either pull in front of the first vehicle, or get in line two or three cars from the front. Makes it much easier to get across a junction as you can maintain the same speed as the cars

yeah but the lovely thing about alot of irish drivers is that they dont indicate. So what has happened to me before is that me and and a cars are stopped at a red light at a junction. They havent used their indicators so I think they are obviously going straight ahead. So im not going to pull in front of it because they will probably get super pissed at me or run me over. Lights change and guess what the car is taking a left and nearly runs me over in the process.

I prefer to stick to my own rules when cycling, less chance of getting killed.

Stark

Well personally, I stop in front of them regardless. Usually I'm able to leave enough space so I have a bit of a headstart so I'm not slowing people too much.

adamski8

stop?

limklad wrote: »

Personally I think it p*g ignorant when cyclist complain about motorised vehicles poor driving when they themselves break the rules of the road.

Well i guess that can be looked at different ways. I think when cyclists complain about poor driving its because its causing a serious danger to the cyclists life. If a driver complains about a cyclist they are not usually worried about their lives just the fact the are breaking a law

Gavin

adamski8 wrote: »

yeah but the lovely thing about alot of irish drivers is that they dont indicate. So what has happened to me before is that me and and a cars are stopped at a red light at a junction. They havent used their indicators so I think they are obviously going straight ahead. So im not going to pull in front of it because they will probably get super pissed at me or run me over. Lights change and guess what the car is taking a left and nearly runs me over in the process.

I prefer to stick to my own rules when cycling, less chance of getting killed.

That was my point about moving into the middle of the lane two or three cars back. They start off slower and it's easy to maintain the same speed as the car. They don't get pissed off if you aren't slowing them down. Pull over to the left then when past the junction and the speed is increasing. I do it all the time, have no hassle.

doozerie

adamski8 wrote: »

Well i guess that can be looked at different ways. I think when cyclists complain about poor driving its because its causing a serious danger to the cyclists life. If a driver complains about a cyclist they are not usually worried about their lives just the fact the are breaking a law

As a cyclist myself, when I complain about idiotic behaviour by other cyclists it is because such behaviour often poses a direct threat to my health and well-being. Likewise when I am a pedestrian. As a driver I complain about such behaviour because I have no desire to be made the instrument of some muppet's death wish.

limklad

ednwireland wrote: »

the only problem i have is when lights dont change because the induction loop doesnt pick up cyclist you could be sat there for a while waiting for a car to come and trigger the lights, mind you not an issue at peak times, but when i used to cycle everywhere in the uk i would usually go over to the pedestrian crossing instead

Two solutions
1/. Get a 1 inch long magnet, leave connected to the bike or lower it to the induction loop when approaching. Solution for motorbike is to leave a large magnet at the bottom of the bike to active lights.

2/. Far simpler and less expensive, Get off the bike and walk on the foot path with your bike, hit the pedestrian light switch, when green man light appears, walk across the road and then get back on your bike and carry on. When you are off your Bike and walking, you now can follow pedestrians rules of the road.

ednwireland

limklad wrote: »

Two solutions
1/. Get a 1 inch long magnet, leave connected to the bike or lower it to the induction loop when approaching. Solution for motorbike is to leave a large magnet at the bottom of the bike to active lights.

2/. Far simpler and less expensive, Get off the bike and walk on the foot path with your bike, hit the pedestrian light switch, when green man light appears, walk across the road and then get back on your bike and carry on. When you are off your Bike and walking, you now can follow pedestrians rules of the road.

which is what i said i'd do - did you even read my post ???? ffs

limklad

adamski8 wrote: »

yeah but the lovely thing about alot of irish drivers is that they dont indicate. So what has happened to me before is that me and and a cars are stopped at a red light at a junction. They havent used their indicators so I think they are obviously going straight ahead. So im not going to pull in front of it because they will probably get super pissed at me or run me over. Lights change and guess what the car is taking a left and nearly runs me over in the process.

I prefer to stick to my own rules when cycling, less chance of getting killed.

While it is best practice to use indicators, it is poor defence in a court of Law. There is no offence for failing to use indicators or improper use of them.
Indicators Only gives other users probable intent, not actually intend. I painfully learnt that lesson from my solicitor, when I pull out in front of a car who had turn on their indicators and then decide to drive on into me intentionally when I had pulled out by a foot and stop. I got caught rotten by the scam artist who spotted a legal opportunity to scam money from my insurance and did so with a smile when he hit my front bumper. At that junction you could fit three Trucks side by side. But the Law was at his side.
I caught him by photographing the accident in detail including him talking , walking, hoping with excitement on his phone laughing (Took the photo's without him noticing) and the current state of his car and immediately phoning my Insurance company giving details of his address to view his car. At the Guards advice, the scam artist who was known by them, had told me to contact a solicitor immediately, in case he put in a claim for injuries. My camera in my car save me a fortune of future hikes in insurance and showed his bogus injuries. Nowadays every phone, I buy I make sure I have a good camera on it for these types of incidents.

anneboleyn

yes

limklad

ednwireland wrote: »

which is what i said i'd do - did you even read my post ???? ffs

You did not say you walk across on the pedestrian crossing. Many cyclist do not walk across pedestrian crossing they cycle.

Stark

Can you run with the bike?

Bluefoam

stop?

Whats the ****ing point of bringing your bike if you have to walk it?

Bluefoam

Bluefoam wrote: »

Whats the ****ing point of bringing your bike if you have to walk it?

Suppose it's practice for this.

No idea if this was posted earlier as I didn't read the rest of the thread.

tomasrojo

Bluefoam wrote: »

Whats the ****ing point of bringing your bike if you have to walk it?

Reminds me of "shluffing": a pointless halfway house between walking and cycling that bikesnobnyc wrote about once.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/03/takin-it-to-streets-things-are-schluff.html

limklad

FYI

Sunday Times wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7018034.ece
Garda figures obtained by The Sunday Times reveal the law is turning a blind eye to badly behaved cyclists, allowing them to run red lights with impunity. Last year, 28 cyclists were prosecuted in Dublin for failing to stop at traffic lights. In contrast, 1,847 motorists were awarded penalty points for failing to obey traffic lights.

HivemindXX

Is this seriously what passes for journalism in Ireland? Colin Coyle should be ashamed of himself for writing this as should the Times for publishing it.

Penalty points were introduced to stream line the process of penalising motorists for infractions. Prosecuting a road user the old fashioned way is much more red tape intensive and far less likely to be actually done. If Colin Coyle was actually interested in doing anything other than appealing to car fans he might find out how many motorists were prosecuted for going through red lights the year before penalty points were introduced and compare it to the number of penalty points handed out the year after.

I strongly suspect if the guards still had to manually take down details and write a summons for motorists they'd be giving a lot more warnings and there would be a hell of a lot less than 1,847 prosecutions.

I'm pretty surpsised to read that there were 28 prosecutions for breaking red lights and 350 cyclists were ordered to present a properly road worthy bike at a garda station. I see this is a very positive development. I'm staggered to see it being spun as "a free ride" by Colin Coyle and the Times.

Apparently the cyclists who are getting this "free ride" are "dangerous" as well, at least according to the headline. Where is the evidence that the many cyclists who break the rules of the road are dangerous? As someone very insightfully pointed out in the current red light jumping thread, the practice of shooting through red lights by cyclists can not be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as people want us to believe. You have to pick one.

Finally the idea that cyclists are responsible for the 30kph limit in that tiny part of the quays in Dublin city centre is placed in the opening paragraph for no apparent reason. Actually that's not strictly accurate, it's apparent to me that the reason this is stuck in there is to establish a motorist versus cyclist tone from the word go. I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that cyclists had either the desire or the ability to get that 30kph limit enacted.

limklad

HivemindXX wrote: »

Is this seriously what passes for journalism in Ireland? Colin Coyle should be ashamed of himself for writing this as should the Times for publishing it.

Penalty points were introduced to stream line the process of penalising motorists for infractions. Prosecuting a road user the old fashioned way is much more red tape intensive and far less likely to be actually done. If Colin Coyle was actually interested in doing anything other than appealing to car fans he might find out how many motorists were prosecuted for going through red lights the year before penalty points were introduced and compare it to the number of penalty points handed out the year after.

I strongly suspect if the guards still had to manually take down details and write a summons for motorists they'd be giving a lot more warnings and there would be a hell of a lot less than 1,847 prosecutions.

I'm pretty surpsised to read that there were 28 prosecutions for breaking red lights and 350 cyclists were ordered to present a properly road worthy bike at a garda station. I see this is a very positive development. I'm staggered to see it being spun as "a free ride" by Colin Coyle and the Times.

Apparently the cyclists who are getting this "free ride" are "dangerous" as well, at least according to the headline. Where is the evidence that the many cyclists who break the rules of the road are dangerous? As someone very insightfully pointed out in the current red light jumping thread, the practice of shooting through red lights by cyclists can not be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as people want us to believe. You have to pick one.

Finally the idea that cyclists are responsible for the 30kph limit in that tiny part of the quays in Dublin city centre is placed in the opening paragraph for no apparent reason. Actually that's not strictly accurate, it's apparent to me that the reason this is stuck in there is to establish a motorist versus cyclist tone from the word go. I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that cyclists had either the desire or the ability to get that 30kph limit enacted.

sunday times wrote:

The gardai have defended their policing of cycling in Dublin, saying their focus is on education to improve behaviour. They set up eight checkpoints around the capital in November, stopping 350 people for cycling without lights or for unroadworthy bikes.
Some 250 offenders who later presented their bicycles to their local garda station, after buying lights or doing repairs, were pardoned and given high-visibility vests.

Irish law regards cyclists as “traffic” which must obey the same laws of the road as motorists. While they do not have to wear a helmet, cyclists must display lights front and rear, and a reflective band. Last year, 93 cyclists were prosecuted for having no front light, 86 were charged with failing to display a rear light and 23 for having no reflector.

In some cases, the law is only now catching up with modern cycling habits. Flashing bicycle lights were legalised several years after they became popular with cyclists.

Now if certain cyclist are not using lights after dark, how can motorist notice them especially when the break stop lights?

Sunday times wrote:

David Maher, a member of the DCC, said cyclists should take responsibility for their behaviour but blamed the gardai for failing to enforce traffic law. “

That is a huge cop-out placing the blame on the Gardai for the unrully behaviour of the cyclist own safety and others around them. I do expect that the gardai are not catching every cyclist breaking the rules of the road and they are using the carrot method at the moment.

In a city there is plenty of pedestrian crossing the streets at lights and the last thing you need crossing the road is a cyclist or any vehicle ploughing into you causing serious harm. I had to give an idiot a right bloxing last year in Limerick for doing so. He ran into me and nearly took out the old age pensioner as well only I caught and held him as I was aware of the pensioner. The light was red for him and green man for us. It does not take much to kill a pensioner and a light branch kill a pensioner on O'Connell Avenue earlier this year and people can get serious fractures and various injuries when hit by unruly cyclist cycling into them.

I think low of those who think this kind of behaviour is not dangerous. They do not take responsibility for their bad behaviour just like drink drivers who think there is no harm in it and they come out with statements like "they never had an accident with drink driving, that they should be allow to keep drinking".