Are cyclists singled out a bit too much?

monument

Are cyclists singled out a bit too much for breaking the law?

As far as I can see -- as groups -- cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians all break the law on a regular bases. But cyclists seem to be always wrongly seen -- by cyclists and others -- as breaking the law more than any other group.

And no cyclists are not the only ones who break the law in serious ways. And, yes, I'm also annoyed by cyclists breaking red lights while I'm standing there waiting for green but I'm just as much annoyed by drivers.

Every day motorists overtake cyclists too closely, speed up and beep when pedestrians are legally crossing the road, drive too close to other cars, use their phone when driving, break speed limits, stop in advance stop lines, stop in pedestrian crossing, run orange lights when they have time to stop, run red lights (maybe mostly when filter lights have not gone green, but I see other cases too, speeding up at orange lights and passing when red is the main one). There's also epidemic levels of parking on footpaths, cycle tracks and, maybe lesser so, bus lanes when they are not suppose to be there.

Every day pedestrians cross when the red man is shown.

Why are cyclists singled out when there's fairly wide-spread breaking of the rules by all groups?

petethedrummer

I'd go along with that. I'm using the M50 alot these days. Most people in the fast lane are breaking the speed limit. Loads are not signalling or even using the correct lanes. Tail Gating too. There is speeding all the time outside my house on the Malahide road. Motorists don't seem to understand the flashing amber lights on the Artane roundabout. etc, etc.

I think I'll go start a thread on motors.

DirkVoodoo

Probably. Everyday, without fail, cars breaks the lights at White's cross coming from Leopardstown road and Newtownpark Avenue. No one seems to mind because everyone does it and there are lots of cars on the roads. Similarly in town, heading people continue to jaywalk across traffic, heading into the Brown Thomas car park is a good example, again no one minds because there are lots of pedestrians and sure you are just following the guy in front.

Cyclists are still a minority and any law breaking is instantly jumped on. There are a lot of idiots out there in fairness, yesterday I had several people with no lights cycle against me when it was dark, but some things like proceeding through an empty pedestrian crossing to get ahead of traffic and change lanes safely doesn't bother me much. I can see why someone is doing it and yes, they are breaking the law (much to the ire of anyone sitting in traffic) but on the danger scale it ranks a few points lower than cycling without lights.

The hypocrisy annoys me a bit, on the one hand you have threads on motors asking people what laws they regularly break (speeding on the motorway was the most common I think, again I think a higher speed limit in the overtaking lane would be a good idea, but that's OT) and yet you get guys coming on to the cycling forum to give out about cyclists breaking lights or cycling in the bus lane and holding up their undertaking in rush hour.

The White's cross thing bugs me no end, but I don't go onto motors ranting about, nor do I try and swipe every car I pass, I just get on with it and hope someday the Gardai might clamp down on it. I won't feel sorry for someone when I see them get stopped for it anyway.

DirkVoodoo

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'd go along with that. I'm using the M50 alot these days. Most people in the fast lane are breaking the speed limit. Loads are not signalling or even using the correct lanes. Tail Gating too. There is speeding all the time outside my house on the Malahide road. Motorists don't seem to understand the flashing amber lights on the Artane roundabout. etc, etc.

I think I'll go start a thread on motors.

I had to drive a Porsche 944 turbo (yup, just putting it out there 0-60 in 5.5 secs) on the M50 a while back. I was in the outside lane, keeping distance from the car in front. Up comes some guy who looked about my brother's age - 18 - with his big Ray-bans on in a VW Polo. He glued himself to my tail, then when I wouldn't move (hey, I'm waiting for the guy 5 cars up to stop hogging the lane!) he decides to move inside 3 lanes, undertake the traffic then move out in front of me. When the traffic in front cleared and his little s**tbox couldn't keep moving, I gave a little flash to signal I was driving a faster car and would he please get the feck out of my way, but he just sat there until gradually we caught up with more traffic where he did the same again.

He strikes me as the type who would have given out about cyclists.

As for me, well I may have been giving Porsche drivers a bad name by keeping adequate braking distance with the car in front, but damn I looked good in that car!

Jawgap

Yup - but I for one applaud the majority for unreasonably and irrationally singling out and isolating the cycling minority for special treatment - feels like I'm in the gang my parents warned me about!

Cabaal

Lets not forget that if you look at the motoring forum the vast majority will admit to breaking the speed limit because they think the road is suitable for the faster speed they want to travel.
:rolleyes:

doozerie

I hear lots of people complain about cyclists yet it is extremely rare that I've seen a cyclist stopped by a garda. I also hear lots of people complain about motorists but I have seen many motorists stopped for breaking the law. Do people complaining about cyclists shout in a louder voice? Maybe. Are cyclists targeted more than motorists by gardai? No, not in my experience.

Actually, over the course of the last couple of years or so I've had more near collisions resulting from stupid behaviour by cyclists than by motorists. I don't believe that means that the number of idiots behind the wheel of a car has decreased, I believe it means that the number of idiots on bikes has increased. As for pedestrians, I don't recall ever seeing a pedestrian tackled by a garda for doing something stupid in traffic. The laws should be better enforced across all groups, in my view, and I certainly don't see the gardai tackling the stupid antics of any cyclist/driver/pedestrian as singling out that particular group.

seamus

As Dirk says, cyclists are a minority on the roads and so are lumped in as one big group, even though there's quite obviously a number of distinct "types" of cyclist.

Motorcyclists have the same problem. The guy who's been driving an 1100cc touring bike for 40 years will get abuse from a car driver because of the actions of a courier on a GS125.

Couriers and taxi drivers in general I feel have the worst manners on the road and least respect for road laws, but while we don't tar all car drivers with the taxi driver brush, most cyclists get tarred with the "courier" brush.

Hopefully the current trend will continue and as cycling becomes more widespread, blanket generalisations will be lost.

DirkVoodoo

seamus wrote: »

As Dirk says, cyclists are a minority on the roads and so are lumped in as one big group, even though there's quite obviously a number of distinct "types" of cyclist.

Motorcyclists have the same problem. The guy who's been driving an 1100cc touring bike for 40 years will get abuse from a car driver because of the actions of a courier on a Honda GS125.

Couriers and taxi drivers in general I feel have the worst manners on the road and least respect for road laws, but while we don't tar all car drivers with the taxi driver brush, most cyclists get tarred with the "courier" brush.

Hopefully the current trend will continue and as cycling becomes more widespread, blanket generalisations will be lost.

Actually the last incident I had with some old lad in Donnybrook (where he tried to swerve his car at me) some of the abuse he leveled at me was for "being a courier", which was odd as I am simply a guy on a bike.

Although if I'm honest, I'm slightly wary about old ladies driving cars and tend to lump them all together under the "stay miles away" bracket.

victorcarrera

monument wrote: »

Are cyclists singled out a bit too much for breaking the law?

I would say not. They break the law just as much as any other road users and as we have seen here on a recent poll 80% of cyclists are motorists.
However if a cyclist runs a red light, the chances are they are only increasing the risk of injury or death to themselves, whereas the same cyclist driving a car or heavy vehichle committing the same offence is at much greater danger to themselves, their passengers and other road users.
The average annual road fatality rate in the republic between 1980 and 2005 was about 450 and not many of those were killied by errant cyclists.
My point is that I think many people falsely equate a cyclists bad behaviour with an increased risk to other road users.
IMO it is more likely the cyclist is singled out because of drivers already inherent stress, impatience and frustration more often than not with themselves. I have observed this behaviour many times while being a passenger to some of these people.

HivemindXX

It's because cyclists are a minority that they are a safe target for abuse. People love to complain and feel that they are the hard working victims in the equation. This is why people like Clarkson and other motoring "journalists" so often initiate diatribes against cyclists. Most of their readers will never consider cycling, especially since they've been told repeatedly that cycling is for losers. This is also why certain Dublin city councillors decided they would try to redirect the motorist anger over the 30kph limit on to cyclists.

I've had a lot of discussions about cyclists with motorists. One point I try to make is that they feel free to bend my ear about cyclists going through red lights but they almost never complain about pedestrians doing the same thing. Is that because they are pedestrians on occasion and they would never wait at a red pedestrian crossing when no cars were coming? I also find that a lot of people don't even listen to what you say, they just want to jump on to the next talking point they've been fed by the motoring press.

Personally I try to never break traffic lights. I have good quality lights that I put on the bike well before lighting up time and I wear a dayglo orange jacket for most of the year. This doesn't stop people abusing me. Most of the abuse can be boiled down to "damn cyclist, you're in my way".

Now, I think that red light jumping is endemic amongst all road users. For some reason motorists think it's fine to go through in the first few seconds of red, often while there is cross traffic waiting to move, but it's an outrage when a cyclist goes through a red light when there's a gap in traffic. However ridiculous the distinction is, it's a fact that it is made. If cyclists were more obedient to the rules of the road the likes of Clarkson would have less mud to sling our way. I have no proof, but I am certain that a lot of the aggression that comes our way is BECAUSE of the demonisation of cyclists in certain areas of the media.

I'll admit that it's ironic that when a cyclist is caught breaking a red light it's an outrage but when a motorist is caught speeding the outrage is the speed camera that caught them. Attitudes like that take a long time to change and just ignoring them and hoping they go away won't do it.

doozerie

victorcarrera wrote:

My point is that I think many people falsely equate a cyclists bad behaviour with an increased risk to other road users.

I disagree, I believe that many people mistakenly consider bad behaviour on a bike as being of no risk to others (or themselves, in many cases) whereas in actual fact it really is. I've been witness to several incidents where a cyclist collided with a pedestrian or another cyclist and the injuries that resulted have ranged from cuts and bruises to fractured bones. I believe that many people grossly underestimate the dangers involved.

cdaly_

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I had to drive a Porsche 944 turbo

No Mummy, please don't make me drive the Porsche again!...

dubmess

seamus wrote: »

As Dirk says, cyclists are a minority on the roads and so are lumped in as one big group, even though there's quite obviously a number of distinct "types" of cyclist.

Motorcyclists have the same problem. The guy who's been driving an 1100cc touring bike for 40 years will get abuse from a car driver because of the actions of a courier on a GS125.

Couriers and taxi drivers in general I feel have the worst manners on the road and least respect for road laws, but while we don't tar all car drivers with the taxi driver brush, most cyclists get tarred with the "courier" brush.

There are also distinct types of couriers, and all get tarred with the 'gurrier' brush... you can keep subdividing groups all day my friend.

mcgratheoin

What's going on here?? A boards thread on bad cycling behaviour and it's full of rational comments and well thought out points? It's like the twilight zone or something...

tomasrojo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group

Explains a large part of it, I think.

IM0

monument wrote: »

Are cyclists singled out a bit too much for breaking the law?

In a word no, what makes you say that though? all depends how you spend your time and who you listen to aswell.

HivemindXX

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group

Explains a large part of it, I think.

In that article there's a reference to Outgroup Homogeneity Bias. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_homogeneity_bias

Briefly this is that members of a group tend to see many subtypes in their own group but see other groups and completely homogenous blobs.

You can try an experiment to verify this next time you're debating road behaviour with a motorist. Conversations of this type usually start with something like

M: "feckin cyclists, only today I saw one sail through a red light".
C: "people who ignore the RotR are everywhere motorists are just as bad"
M: "hang on there, cyclists are way worse than motorists.."
C: "just today a taxi overtook me and then slammed on to grab a fare"
M: "taxi drivers! don't get me started, they're all ****"
C: "last week a bus..."
M: "Busses! They shouldn't be on the damn roads"
C: "A guy in a van..."
M: "Scum, all scum!"
.....
C: "so...motorists are great except for taxis, busses, motorcycles, delivery guys, truckers, SUV drivers (unless you drive an SUV), boy racers, middle aged boy racers and basically everyone who's not just like you?

ednwireland

HivemindXX wrote: »

In that article there's a reference to Outgroup Homogeneity Bias. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_homogeneity_bias

Briefly this is that members of a group tend to see many subtypes in their own group but see other groups and completely homogenous blobs.

You can try an experiment to verify this next time you're debating road behaviour with a motorist. Conversations of this type usually start with something like

M: "feckin cyclists, only today I saw one sail through a red light".
C: "people who ignore the RotR are everywhere motorists are just as bad"
M: "hang on there, cyclists are way worse than motorists.."
C: "just today a taxi overtook me and then slammed on to grab a fare"
M: "taxi drivers! don't get me started, they're all ****"
C: "last week a bus..."
M: "Busses! They shouldn't be on the damn roads"
C: "A guy in a van..."
M: "Scum, all scum!"
.....
C: "so...motorists are great except for taxis, busses, motorcycles, delivery guys, truckers, SUV drivers (unless you drive an SUV), boy racers, middle aged boy racers and basically everyone who's not just like you?

seems about right, case closed your honour

monument

me@ucd wrote: »

In a word no, what makes you say that though? all depends how you spend your time and who you listen to aswell.

I mean generally and fairly wide spread -- ie here on the cycling board, politicians single out cyclists, in the media etc.

I'm not in denial that many cyclists are break lights etc and too many shouldn't be on the road, but the same goes for other groups just as much.

tomasrojo

Without wishing to appear disloyal, I have to say I'm very sure that no other group breaks lights to the extent that cyclists do. Except for maybe pedestrians, but the green time they get is absurdly unfair, so I can't blame them.

Car users do break lights every day but not to the extent that you're slightly surprised when a car stops at a red light at a minor junction. On the other hand, car users are awful at obeying speed limits and frequently poor at conceding right of way to more vulnerable road users.

EDIT: I should make it clear that I find the harping on about cyclists and their minor infractions in the media excessive and given how few people are injured or killed by cyclists the focus serves no real purpose except to give frustrated people a chance to vent about people who aren't in their in-group.

ANOTHER EDIT: It occurs to me that I am surprised to see motorists wait at a junction when the straight-ahead light is green but there is no left-turn green. More often than not they turn left and drive through the adjacent pedestrian crossing which is showing the green man. A real bête noire of mine.

cdaly_

tomasrojo wrote: »

ANOTHER EDIT: It occurs to me that I am surprised to see motorists wait at a junction when the straight-ahead light is green but there is no left-turn green. More often than not they turn left and drive through the adjacent pedestrian crossing which is showing the green man. A real bête noire of mine.

Oh yes, don't get me started. This is a regular occurrence at the Clontarf end of Alfie Bryne road. Cars from Fairview have a straight on green and a right turn red. Pedestrian lights are green to cross Alfie Bryne road and they still drive on through. I've taken to sitting (well, standing) waiting to turn right at the front of the queue...

Raam

cdaly_ wrote: »

Oh yes, don't get me started. This is a regular occurrence at the Clontarf end of Alfie Bryne road. Cars from Fairview have a straight on green and a right turn red. Pedestrian lights are green to cross Alfie Bryne road and they still drive on through. I've taken to sitting (well, standing) waiting to turn right at the front of the queue...

I guess that's cos the filter is green for about 3 seconds.

rp

tomasrojo wrote: »

Without wishing to appear disloyal, I have to say I'm very sure that no other group breaks lights to the extent that cyclists do.

I dunno, go and stand by any traffic light, and there's a fair chance that approx. three cars will continue through the junction after the light turns red.

CramCycle

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

some of the abuse he leveled at me was for "being a courier", which was odd as I am simply a guy on a bike..

A few years ago a guy on a moped speed out(as much as a moped can) from a one way street straight through 3 lanes of traffic, only for I slammed on my brakes both himself and myself could have been seriously injured. I let a roar of abuse at him as he sailed by. 2 minutes later I found him pulling me over, started to give out to me. When I pointed out what he had done he roared your all the f'in same, I knew he meant courier cause I had a courier bag on my back (I'm not a courier and so far had not broken any laws that I knew of other than shouting at him). He then dismounted and asked me to join him to sort it out on the side of the road. He did become a little disheartened when I started laughing (turns out he was about 5 foot tall and a squishy version of the Pilsbury dough boy). I just cycled off as he had a minor coronary and his ego became slightly scarred.

tomasrojo wrote: »

ANOTHER EDIT: It occurs to me that I am surprised to see motorists wait at a junction when the straight-ahead light is green but there is no left-turn green. More often than not they turn left and drive through the adjacent pedestrian crossing which is showing the green man. A real bête noire of mine.

Got knocked unconscious by a car doing this and not even indicating, got a letter from her company telling me it was my fault. I sent them a picture of the junction it occurred on from google maps where you can see the straight ahead only sign painted on the road. No apologies but I strangely got my med bill and my laptop repair cost covered.

rp wrote: »

I dunno, go and stand by any traffic light, and there's a fair chance that approx. three cars will continue through the junction after the light turns red.

Minimum legal requirements nowadays as far as I know,

Seen a guy at a T junction with a red light speeding from around 70 yards away and going almost on 2 wheels when he took the corner. Only for the car coming towards rathfarnham stalled that would have been a nice addition to the death toll on the roads this year or don't even get me started on the Donnybrook junction beside the church at night, I think at night times the minimum number of RLJs goes up to about 5 per light change.

tomasrojo

That's true about the 2+ light-breaking motorists after the light goes red. However, you don't usually see motorists break the lights long after it's gone red and then perhaps sail across to the middle of the junction and wait there for a break in the traffic, for example.

Of course, if the size of their vehicle permitted them to do this, perhaps they would!

tomasrojo

Raam wrote: »

I guess that's cos the filter is green for about 3 seconds.

I know the junction, but I've never driven it though I've cycled through that filter occasionally.

3 seconds? Sounds like the equivalent of those normal-width traffic lanes that have a cycle track painted on them, resulting in a car lane that's too narrow and a bike lane that is always driven on: lip service for a section of road users; they've given you an option to turn right, but it's actually unusable.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

However, you don't usually see motorists break the lights long after it's gone red and then perhaps sail across to the middle of the junction and wait there for a break in the traffic, for example.

Due to work etc. i cycle alot at night, unfortunately I do see it quite alot. I think the generally mentally is that their aren't as many drivers around and unless they see the headlights of another car, a few presume it safe to speed across. It has gotten alot worse in the last few months though, I see cyclists do it as well, I just notice more cars, obviously due to the larger number of cars.

Just to be clear, these cars aren't stopping in the middle of a junction and waiting for a break in traffic, they are approaching the junction and sailing through them without any indication of stopping, a few slow down on approach and speed up when they think it's safe but none of the cars I refer to actually stop and then break the red.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Due to work etc. i cycle alot at night, unfortunately I do see it quite alot. I think the generally mentally is that their aren't as many drivers around and unless they see the headlights of another car, a few presume it safe to speed across. It has gotten alot worse in the last few months though, I see cyclists do it as well, I just notice more cars, obviously due to the larger number of cars.

Just to be clear, these cars aren't stopping in the middle of a junction and waiting for a break in traffic, they are approaching the junction and sailing through them without any indication of stopping, a few slow down on approach and speed up when they think it's safe but none of the cars I refer to actually stop and then break the red.

Wow! I don't think I've ever seen anything that bad. I'm not out as much at night as I used to be though.

TunaSaladBB

"I am a pedestrian and I don't always wait for green. I look all ways and go with caution when it's safe to go."
-Most pedestrians.

"I am a cyclist and I don't always wait for green. I look all ways and go with caution when it's safe to go."
-Most cyclists (myself included).

This applies to pedestrians and cyclists, not cars, for the following reasons:
-Slower speed
-Greater ability to stop or get out of way if "someone comes out of nowhere"
-More awareness of what's around them. i.e. not in an enclosed box of a car. I understand this doesn't apply to the iPod brigade. I never have earphones in while cycling
-Less potential to cause harm to other road users

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Wow! I don't think I've ever seen anything that bad. I'm not out as much at night as I used to be though.

It used to happen occasionally at the big junctions where they might be able to see traffic from all angles but in the last few months it is happening alot more and at every type of junction. Not sure of the reasoning behind it though, it's on the increase though, much like the increase in amber gambling and the +2/3/5 after the red in recent times.

deandean

Motorists interpretation of traffic lights:

Amber = Accelerate!

Red = Two more cars.

Lumen

TunaSaladBB wrote: »

"I am a pedestrian and I don't always wait for green. I look all ways and go with caution when it's safe to go."
-Most pedestrians.

"I am a cyclist and I don't always wait for green. I look all ways and go with caution when it's safe to go."
-Most cyclists (myself included).

This applies to pedestrians and cyclists, not cars, for the following reasons:
-Slower speed
-Greater ability to stop or get out of way if "someone comes out of nowhere"
-More awareness of what's around them. i.e. not in an enclosed box of a car. I understand this doesn't apply to the iPod brigade. I never have earphones in while cycling
-Less potential to cause harm to other road users

That's bollix that is. You're just making up a bunch of stuff to justify your own behaviour.

doozerie

TunaSaladBB wrote:

"I am a pedestrian and I don't always wait for green. I look all ways and go with caution when it's safe to go."
-Most pedestrians.

"I am a cyclist and I don't always wait for green. I look all ways and go with caution when it's safe to go."
-Most cyclists (myself included).

This applies to pedestrians and cyclists, not cars, for the following reasons:
-Slower speed
-Greater ability to stop or get out of way if "someone comes out of nowhere"
-More awareness of what's around them. i.e. not in an enclosed box of a car. I understand this doesn't apply to the iPod brigade. I never have earphones in while cycling
-Less potential to cause harm to other road users

Re "slower speed": Many cyclists travel as quickly as cars. Particularly when traffic is heavy/congested typically most cyclists are actually moving faster than cars. Also, if a car stops, looks, and then goes then they will be going slowly if/when they collide with someone/something, and again possibly slower than a person on the bike who does the same. The slower speed argument does not hold up.

Re "greater ability to stop or get out of way": The brakes on many bikes are rubbish, giving them a stopping distance of many metres/collisions. Also, the standard of bike control amongst the majority of people that I see routinely ignoring red lights is rubbish - even if they manage to swerve to avoid colliding with you they'll probably end up falling off their bike on top of you. The greater ability to stop does not hold up as an argument for people on bikes generally.

Re "more awareness of what's around them": I've had people on bikes break a red light and pull out right in front of me (while I'm cycling), I've seen them do the same to other cyclists and to cars. Being on a bike does not automatically make you more aware, so that argument does not hold up.

Re "less potential to cause harm to other road users": Yes, the risks posed by someone on a bike are typically less than those posed by a ton of metal in a collision, but people arguing in favour of cyclists being able to ignore the rules of the road tend to imply that the risk from a bike is zero. This is clearly not the case and anyone that has been on either end of a pedestrian/cyclist or cyclist/cyclist collision knows this from bitter experience. People on bikes *are* a danger to other road users and the "we are less dangerous than cars" argument makes about as much sense as a car driver arguing that they should be allowed to break red lights because a car is "less dangerous than a truck".

buffalo

yay, I encountered another red light breaker on the way home. I was heading from Burgh Quay to Aston Quay, and a gent decided to merge at the corner from Westmoreland Street to Aston Quay. I hauled on the brakes so as not to hit him, and then ashamedly called him a ****ing eejit as I passed. About five seconds later I regretted not having pulled alongside and explained exactly what was stupid and dangerous about his behaviour, but about ten seconds after that I realised he probably wouldn't have listened anyway.

multisport

The speed argument is only part of the picture. I prefer to think of this in momentum terms

100kg cyclist at 20mph
vs
1000kg car at 8 mph

that equates to
894 kg-m/sec for the cyclist
vs
3576 kg-m/s for the car or approx 4times the momentum of the cyclist.

So even at much slower speeds the car has the potential to do lots more damage and for me that's a big issue.

BTW, I'm a cyclist, but there's times the snooze button wins out and I drive to work instead and like to think that I keep an eye out for cyclists, but know that there are times I lapse.
Looking for cyclists is also partly thanks to a driving instructor who taught me to drive a bus recently who continually harped on about the cyclists ( or snipers as he called them ).
I guess education from driver instructors can make a big difference to people's attitudes.

DirkVoodoo

Well, I spent the day driving around town (dublin), something I hate and the amount of crap I was was ridiculous. From everyone. It's like trying to navigate a fricking mine field, no one follows the law because no one gets stopped and there is no law enforcement "presence" around.

TunaSaladBB

Lumen wrote: »

That's bollix that is. You're just making up a bunch of stuff to justify your own behaviour.

Thanks for your constructive input there.

doozerie wrote: »

Re "slower speed": Many cyclists travel as quickly as cars. Particularly when traffic is heavy/congested typically most cyclists are actually moving faster than cars. Also, if a car stops, looks, and then goes then they will be going slowly if/when they collide with someone/something, and again possibly slower than a person on the bike who does the same. The slower speed argument does not hold up.

Re "greater ability to stop or get out of way": The brakes on many bikes are rubbish, giving them a stopping distance of many metres/collisions. Also, the standard of bike control amongst the majority of people that I see routinely ignoring red lights is rubbish - even if they manage to swerve to avoid colliding with you they'll probably end up falling off their bike on top of you. The greater ability to stop does not hold up as an argument for people on bikes generally.

Re "more awareness of what's around them": I've had people on bikes break a red light and pull out right in front of me (while I'm cycling), I've seen them do the same to other cyclists and to cars. Being on a bike does not automatically make you more aware, so that argument does not hold up.

Re "less potential to cause harm to other road users": Yes, the risks posed by someone on a bike are typically less than those posed by a ton of metal in a collision, but people arguing in favour of cyclists being able to ignore the rules of the road tend to imply that the risk from a bike is zero. This is clearly not the case and anyone that has been on either end of a pedestrian/cyclist or cyclist/cyclist collision knows this from bitter experience. People on bikes *are* a danger to other road users and the "we are less dangerous than cars" argument makes about as much sense as a car driver arguing that they should be allowed to break red lights because a car is "less dangerous than a truck".

Speed- poster above got ahead of me there with the issue of momentum. I also stop/slow right down at every red light. Then when it's safe, I go. I wouldn't say there's many cars that accelerate slower than I do.

Ability to stop or get out of the way- Firstly, see momentum. Secondly, you shouldn't be cycling a bike that isn't roadworthy. You're a danger to yourself and others, no matter how vigilant you are about the rest of the ROTR.

Awareness- I agree that being on a bike does not automatically make you more aware of what's going on on the road. From my own experience, I am more aware of what's happening on the road when I'm cycling than when I'm driving.

Less potential to cause harm-I agree, the risk from a bike is not zero and every cyclist is a danger to other road users. But it is significantly less than a car/truck-see momentum again (which you alluded to in your own post). The car v truck argument doesn't make too much difference as they both exceed a critical mass of danger in collisions, even at low speeds. I doubt I'd do much damage at less than 5mph on my bike.


My main point before was that pedestrians crossing the road when it's safe (but no green man) are regarded as normal and we all do that. If a junction is safe and I stop, get off my bike and run across the empty road, am I that much different if I stop and cycle across the empty road?

CramCycle

TunaSaladBB wrote: »

/From my own experience, I am more aware of what's happening on the road when I'm cycling than when I'm driving.

Pry shouldn't be driving then :pac:

TunaSaladBB

CramCycle wrote: »

Pry shouldn't be driving then :pac:

Just comparatively speaking! I'd still consider myself a very safe driver.

doozerie

@TunaSaladBB, You seem to have gone from arguing that cyclists generally should be allowed to break red lights to qualifying that to say that certain cyclists only, of which you are one, should be allowed to do so. That makes your argument weaker, not stronger.

The rules of the road regarding red lights apply to all road users and they are pretty simple rules. You clearly wish to apply a different set of rules to some road users only and you seem to be arguing that this results in no increased risk to anyone. Your judgement is biased by the fact that your version of the rules has benefits only for you, and I doubt you'd be supporting that argument if you had nothing to gain from it.

Peetrik

I think your dead right Tunasalad.

TunaSaladBB

doozerie wrote: »

@TunaSaladBB, You seem to have gone from arguing that cyclists generally should be allowed to break red lights to qualifying that to say that certain cyclists only, of which you are one, should be allowed to do so. That makes your argument weaker, not stronger.

The rules of the road regarding red lights apply to all road users and they are pretty simple rules. You clearly wish to apply a different set of rules to some road users only and you seem to be arguing that this results in no increased risk to anyone. Your judgement is biased by the fact that your version of the rules has benefits only for you, and I doubt you'd be supporting that argument if you had nothing to gain from it.

Nobody is allowed break red lights. I'm not arguing that point, I know that I'm not allowed to break red lights. My point is that cyclists who break red lights safely are a distinct category from those who do not. At a party last night, I was told of two people that don't stop at red lights at all "because it's too hard to get going again." I disagree with that kind of attitude but I reckon those kind of people are a very visible and memorable minority.

I don't wish to apply a different set of rules. The rules are fine as they are. I will continue to bend the rules if there is benefit for me and no disadvantage or danger to anyone else (apart from increasing the blood pressure of jealous stationary drivers).

CramCycle

TunaSaladBB wrote: »

I don't wish to apply a different set of rules. The rules are fine as they are. I will continue to bend the rules if there is benefit for me and no disadvantage or danger to anyone else (apart from increasing the blood pressure of jealous stationary drivers).

No offense to you but you mention earlier you are a "very safe driver". Safe drivers are the ones who accept the fact that even though its safe to do something, you wouldn't risk it even if it's only to "bend the rules"(technically break), because as the ads say "EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED".

Daniel S

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I had to drive a Porsche 944 turbo (yup, just putting it out there 0-60 in 5.5 secs) on the M50 a while back. I was in the outside lane, keeping distance from the car in front. Up comes some guy who looked about my brother's age - 18 - with his big Ray-bans on in a VW Polo. He glued himself to my tail, then when I wouldn't move (hey, I'm waiting for the guy 5 cars up to stop hogging the lane!) he decides to move inside 3 lanes, undertake the traffic then move out in front of me. When the traffic in front cleared and his little s**tbox couldn't keep moving, I gave a little flash to signal I was driving a faster car and would he please get the feck out of my way, but he just sat there until gradually we caught up with more traffic where he did the same again.

He strikes me as the type who would have given out about cyclists.

As for me, well I may have been giving Porsche drivers a bad name by keeping adequate braking distance with the car in front, but damn I looked good in that car!

haha

ThisRegard

deandean wrote: »

Motorists interpretation of traffic lights:

Amber = Accelerate!

Red = Two more cars.

One morning while in the car I got beeped and expletives worded at me from the stupid cow behind me for having the temerity to actually stop as a light was going red on a pedestrian crossing on the south quays across from the ifsc. That's the mentality of some of the motorists we have to deal with on a daily basis.

poochiem

couldn't be arsed reading this thread but just a warning to any new cyclists who use the canal path in town. Cars travelling east along the canal will break the red lights to turn right (south) at the Harold's Cross bridge as you can see from the google street view there is in fact a car breaking the lights!

I travel this every day and I tend to pull up at the junction and 'pedestrianise' up onto the bridge. I don't think I have ever seen these lights obeyed in a year of cycling, how there isn't more than the one ghost bike here is beyond me...and I've never ever seen a guard here.

ThisRegard

That's my route too but there's no need to go on the path or get off the bike, just keep an eye out as you would at every other junction on the canal.

coolbeans

I cycle every day and every day I break lights quite simply because I can get away with it and more crucially because it often makes sense, to use a loaded term,"when it is safe to do so". I know it probably gives cyclists a bad name but that's the way it is and I can't see myself changing. I honestly think it's OK if you use a bit of common sense and respect for others such as employing the vulnerability hierarchy i.e. that all peds having right of way no matter how of out of place or in the wrong they may be. The rules of the road were designed primarily with an emerging motoring infrastructure in mind; a regime which is often unsuited to the needs of cyclists and other non-motorised non transit modes. I'm getting a bit tired of reading posts about RLJers from people who seem to think it makes sense "because it's the law" to wait for the red instead of anticipating the green and moving ahead through the red so that you're not engulfed by heavy traffic from behind. I move ahead because it's much safer to do so and if that means breaking the red so I don't have a truck on top of me while moving off then so be it.

doozerie

TunaSaladBB wrote:

My point is that cyclists who break red lights safely are a distinct category from those who do not.

So you are the elusive superhero with the infallible observational skills and the ability to predict the actions of others before they've even decided for themselves. I was beginning to think you didn't exist, what with the huge numbers of people involved in accidents who insist that they never saw that pedestrian/cyclist/car/tree/etc. before they collided with it. It's good to know that there is someone perfect out there, suiting himself/herself but obviously without posing any risk whatsoever to the rest of us. What's your secret, is it wearing your underpants outside your trousers that gives you your powers, or maybe an ability to bend time?

doozerie

coolbeans wrote:

I move ahead because it's much safer to do so and if that means breaking the red so I don't have a truck on top of me while moving off then so be it.

They're not really out to get you, you know. You shouldn't take films like this to heart: