Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Jawgap

Not sure about "further" enforcement, but there should certainly be better enforcement - which does not equate to harsher or more frequent punishment for ne'er do wells!

godihatedehills

It was just sarcasm, you can't honestly be advocating removing all the traffic lights from the city??! My point was that you can't be above the law, otherwise everyone should be allowed flout that law.

coolbeans

godihatedehills wrote: »

It was just sarcasm, you can't honestly be advocating removing all the traffic lights from the city??! My point was that you can't be above the law, otherwise everyone should be allowed flout that law.

When I lived in Maynooth the village lights failed for a few days and traffic flowed more freely than it did before. That's no excuse to break the lights when they are functioning though.

@dearg lady, your implication, although not deliberate is that those of us who obey the rules are a little dimmer than you are. I'm not inclined to agree. I'll reiterate, if everyone adopted your attitude, the result would be chaotic.

Nanazolie

dearg lady wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said that..

If you think that you can break the rules because you can make your own judgement in assessing a danger, you imply that people who obey the rules at all times are dumbheads. And if you only stick to the rules because you are afraid of being fined, then your motivation is not the security of every road user, but your own pocket. The lady who knocked me off my bike was making a judgement based on what she could see, which turned out to be the wrong one. No one was around to fine her should she break the stop sign, otherwise she would have duly stopped.

Undercover Elephant

godihatedehills wrote: »

It was just sarcasm, you can't honestly be advocating removing all the traffic lights from the city??!

No, I'd say about 10-15% of them do a useful job.

My point was that you can't be above the law, otherwise everyone should be allowed flout that law.

Agreed - assuming the same circumstances.

ROK ON

godihatedehills wrote: »

why have red lights at all? what a waste of money.

everyone should just decide when they think it's safe to go.

dearg lady wrote: »

I read an article on this in Time years ago. road signs, lights etc were removed from a town in (I think) Holland. It was very successful at the time, but I would like to see soem updates on it, and also don't know how well it would translate to larger cities.

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think it was Norway or Sweden but I think there's far too many traffic lights. I saw another youtube video of lights down in London and there were no pile ups. The Parade lights in Kilkenny were down often in while the work was being done to the Mayor walk and again, no accidents. Traffic lights cause really bad traffic and in a lot of cases a roundabout would be far more ideal.

We have way too many lights in this country IMHO. For example, for folks that know the Dublin northside, there are 13 sets of lights in the 1km between the new bridge at Blackhall Place and the Tesco at the top of Manor St.
I was in a taxi a few years back and a taxi driver said that the company that was responsible for putting in all of the traffic lights were a big donator to one Ray Burke. As a txi driver told me this I assume it was Gospel truth.

HivemindXX

Around the time the Luas went in there was frequent problems with the traffic lights at Suir Road bridge. There were no accidents because nobody (except cyclists) was moving.

I'd be interested to see an experiment where all the traffic lights were turned off in Dublin, but I'd want to see it from a different city. However it worked in other cities in Dublin I suspect we'd some roads become impassable to pedestrians and a massive increase in fender benders and road rage.

dearg lady

coolbeans wrote: »

@dearg lady, your implication, although not deliberate is that those of us who obey the rules are a little dimmer than you are. I'm not inclined to agree. I'll reiterate, if everyone adopted your attitude, the result would be chaotic.

well my genuine apologies for implying that, that is honestly not what I meant. We all see ridiculous rules around us all the time, I just like to push people to question it more.
Anyways, i've gone way off topic, got caught up in the discussion, sorry OP!

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

Meme reference, for the uninitiated.

Cyclists, Go use the footpad

LOL, what a great thread full of so many idiots posting ridiculousness

as for the rest of this:

blorg

dearg lady wrote: »

I'm sure there's more that I can't think of, will add to it after my cycle home! :P

Stopping in front of Advanced Stop Lines (e.g. on the red boxes for cyclists in front of the stop line.) Well over 50% of motorists do this, and it is entirely illegal, 2 penalty points, and utterly unenforced.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Stopping in front of Advanced Stop Lines (e.g. on the red boxes for cyclists in front of the stop line.) Well over 50% of motorists do this, and it is entirely illegal, 2 penalty points, and utterly unenforced.

Haven't checked the law here, but in the UK it is not illegal to stop past the ASL, it is only illegal to cross the ASL when the light is red.

Similarly, it is not illegal to stop in a box junction if you're turning right and only obstructed by oncoming traffic.

I await correction.

HivemindXX

Well, I believe it's illegal to cross the stop line when the light is amber "unless it would be unsafe to do so". Funny how such a seemingly innocent clause effectively cancelled the entire rule.

I think you are correct about yellow boxes. Although I believe the actual yellow box is just highlighting where the junction is for those less than attentive people or those who are apt to conveniently forget the rules when it suits them. Every 'yellow box' rule is simply a junction rule that applies to every junction whether there is a yellow box or not.

As as aside I saw a particularly exotic maneuver by a car on the way in to work this morning. Two lanes, one straight ahead and one right turn only. Light is green for straight ahead, red for left. Car in left turn lane pulls out in front of me and moves in to straight ahead lane. The driver didn't indicate and left it until I was almost adjacent but I wasn't too suprised at that. They then shot down the straight ahead lane and turned left right in front of me (without indicating), cutting across the line of cars stopped at the red light and proceeding through the junction breaking the red light.

Cookie_Monster

HivemindXX wrote: »

As as aside I saw a particularly exotic maneuver by a car on the way in to work this morning. Two lanes, one straight ahead and one right turn only. Light is green for straight ahead, red for left. Car in left turn lane pulls out in front of me and moves in to straight ahead lane. The driver didn't indicate and left it until I was almost adjacent but I wasn't too suprised at that. They then shot down the straight ahead lane and turned left right in front of me (without indicating), cutting across the line of cars stopped at the red light and proceeding through the junction breaking the red light.

The "I'm too important to wait with the likes of you plebs" manoeuvre. See that the odd time alright, it was endemic when I was over in the UAE

Chips Lovell

On the issue of speeding, looks like there's been a big upsurge in the numbers being done, according to today's Irish Times:

The number of drivers getting penalty points for speeding this year is expected to far surpass 2010 with motorists in counties Clare, Kerry, Longford, Limerick and elsewhere already surpassing last year’s totals.

The sharp increase follows the introduction of more than 600 privately operated speed cameras around the country.

Almost 96,000 drivers have received penalty points on their licences for speeding from January to June this year. The figure is already over 70 per cent of the total for all of 2010, which was just over 131,000.

Nanazolie

About time....

Rules I want inforced for cyclists:
Stop at red lights (all of them)
Wear high vis jackets / bands
have front and back lights (back should be flashing)
No cycling on footpaths. Cyclists can use footpaths but must dismount
No counter-traffic cycling
No smoking, eating, reading, texting (or making calls). You need both hands for a reason.


Improvments I want for cyclists:

• Separate cycle lanes that actually make sense. I see many lanes that stop abruptly at junctions, or disappear mid-road. Along Fairview Park, they repainted a portion of the lane after the works (the lane is on the footpath) and mixed it up with the pedestrian lane, for that portion only so it's on the left at first and then on the right. It confuses the pedestrians and cyclists.
• A system that allows cyclists to join a main road at a V junction. Eg: you cycle on a one lane road that merges with another road from the left. You suddenly end up in the middle of the 2 lanes road while you were on the left hand side of the one lane road before. What's best then? Cross the left lane to reach the left hand side of the road? Stay in the middle?
• A system that allows cyclists to turn right on 2 lane roads when the cycle track is on the left hand side of the road. Eg: you cycle on the left hand side of a 2 lane road, the left lane goes straight while the right lane turns right. You need to take the right turn, how do you proceed? Cycle in the middle of the road? Extend your right arm to indicate and pray that the cars behind you will stop? Dismount and cross the road on foot?

Lumen

Nanazolie wrote: »

Wear high vis jackets / bands

LOL

monkeybutter

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

In fairness that study was done on one of the lowest and most controversial speed limits in the country. Do you think they'd get the same results on an average stretch of road?

9 out of 10 drivers speed, I have to speed just to keep up, that's in the 50k zone that is most cities, main roads are prolly 50/50. Try driving around at 50k, you will have a queue behind you, same if you do 80k out in the country.

9 out of 10 speed up on amber.

the 1 out of 10 who don't are all in the blue rinse category.

It's hard to spot an irish pedestrian who doesn't jay walk, save on the really dangerous spots, but college green area is a great example of this. Even when there are pedestrian lights within a couple of feet people will jay walk rather than use them.

Jumping red lights at crossroads is plain dangerous given the speed people are pegging round in their cars, breaking a red to go left when there are no pedestrians should just be legalised.

Chips Lovell

Nanazolie wrote: »

About time....

Rules I want inforced for cyclists:
Stop at red lights (all of them)
Wear high vis jackets / bands
have front and back lights (back should be flashing)
No cycling on footpaths. Cyclists can use footpaths but must dismount
No counter-traffic cycling
No smoking, eating, reading, texting (or making calls). You need both hands for a reason.

There is no legal requirement to wear high viz jackets or bands. And flashing lights are technically illegal. Although the government has said it will legistlate to allow for them.

Beasty

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

And flashing lights are technically illegal. Although the government has said it will legistlate to allow for them.

I think flashing lights are not illegal as such, but are not "legal" either!

You are not committing an offence if you have a flashing light on during daytime, or in conjuction with a "legal" steady state one at nighttime

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

About time....

Rules I want inforced for cyclists:
Stop at red lights (all of them) valid
Wear high vis jackets / bands don't be ridiculous, no need at all for that
have front and back lights (back should be flashing) valid, but no need for specifically flashing
No cycling on footpaths. Cyclists can use footpaths but must dismount valid too, though I do this a little bit in places
No counter-traffic cycling why not, plenty of places when bus can do it and it's legall do able should the councils actually decide to provide for it on roads
No smoking, eating, reading, texting (or making calls). You need both hands for a reason. :rolleyes:

I also want all the above apart for the jacket and being able to eat/smoke enforced for motorists, here's hoping...

Nanazolie wrote: »

Improvments I want for cyclists:

• Separate cycle lanes that actually make sense. I see many lanes that stop abruptly at junctions, or disappear mid-road. Along Fairview Park, they repainted a portion of the lane after the works (the lane is on the footpath) and mixed it up with the pedestrian lane, for that portion only so it's on the left at first and then on the right. It confuses the pedestrians and cyclists.
• A system that allows cyclists to join a main road at a V junction. Eg: you cycle on a one lane road that merges with another road from the left. You suddenly end up in the middle of the 2 lanes road while you were on the left hand side of the one lane road before. What's best then? Cross the left lane to reach the left hand side of the road? Stay in the middle?
• A system that allows cyclists to turn right on 2 lane roads when the cycle track is on the left hand side of the road. Eg: you cycle on the left hand side of a 2 lane road, the left lane goes straight while the right lane turns right. You need to take the right turn, how do you proceed? Cycle in the middle of the road? Extend your right arm to indicate and pray that the cars behind you will stop? Dismount and cross the road on foot?

all three of those are unneeded, proper use of roads and lanes and signalling are all that are required to safely deal with each point. Simple, no costly rebuilds required, no pointless unenforced laws required.

Chips Lovell

Beasty wrote: »

I think flashing lights are not illegal as such, but are not "legal" either!

You are not committing an offence if you have a flashing light on during daytime, or in conjuction with a "legal" steady state one at nighttime

That's a more correct interpretation of it alright.

galwaycyclist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The "I'm too important to wait with the likes of you plebs" manoeuvre. See that the odd time alright, it was endemic when I was over in the UAE

Slightly off topic but as I recall from my time in the UAE it was usually someone connected with the Royal family so it was actually OK for them.

(Tongue firmly in cheek) In Ireland although we have gotten rid of our previous royalty - we replaced them with a system where the purchase of a motor car made you "honourary royalty". As a consequence, the state would seek to pander to your every need - provided you were in a car (and used everybody elses taxes to do so).

In the process, the concept of rule of law got debased to a system for deciding compensation after crashes.

Nanazolie

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There is no legal requirement to wear high viz jackets or bands. And flashing lights are technically illegal. Although the government has said it will legistlate to allow for them.

Why is that? They are more visible than the other ones, aren't they?

monument

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

And flashing lights are technically illegal. Although the government has said it will legistlate to allow for them.

While other measures are on hold, the Department said flashing bicycle lights were made legal:

"The use of flashing lights (commonly used by many cyclists) has been illegal since they were introduced to the market in Ireland. The Minister has now signed the Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 which makes the use of these lights by cyclists legal."

-- From Department of Transport press release "Dempsey's Christmas Lights......and other good news for cyclists" on December 28, 2009.

Nanazolie wrote: »

Stop at red lights (all of them)

Agreed.

I want to win commuter races on skill, not by default because somebody breaks a light. It's so annoying when that happens.

Nanazolie wrote: »

Wear high vis jackets / bands

Only if everybody has to wear high-vis while waking even in urban areas and all cars have to have a large high-vis stripe all the way around the car.

Otherwise, no.

Nanazolie wrote: »

No counter-traffic cycling

We need to allow it in a lot of more cases, as happens in French and German cities.

Nanazolie wrote: »

No smoking, eating, reading, texting (or making calls). You need both hands for a reason.

No, you don't need both hands -- in fact, you need to be able to have one hand on the handle bar for things like hand signals and looking behind you.

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

Why is that? They are more visible than the other ones, aren't they?

why? because they are totally unneeded. why aren't all clothes bright yellow, why don't all bikes have to be painted luminous orange, and cars and buses?

I assume anyone who wears one on a bike is incompetent and has to be treated with extra care tbh.

Chips Lovell

Nanazolie wrote: »

Why is that? They are more visible than the other ones, aren't they?

I suppose for the same reason you're not obliged to have a day-glo car.

monument wrote: »

While other measures are on hold, the Department said flashing bicycle lights were made legal:

"The use of flashing lights (commonly used by many cyclists) has been illegal since they were introduced to the market in Ireland. The Minister has now signed the Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 which makes the use of these lights by cyclists legal."

Cheers. Didn't realise they'd gone and done it.

ednwireland

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

On the issue of speeding, looks like there's been a big upsurge in the numbers being done, according to today's Irish Times:

prob more todo with mobile speed cameras being introduced round the country (people arent speeding any more or less just being caught )

edit; should read article thats basically what it said

seamus

Nanazolie wrote: »

Why is that? They are more visible than the other ones, aren't they?

My guess is becuase flashing lights are typically reserved for emergency services (and things like road crews) only, so they were illegal to have on any vehicle, including bicycles.

monument

monument wrote: »

While other measures are on hold, the Department said flashing bicycle lights were made legal:

"The use of flashing lights (commonly used by many cyclists) has been illegal since they were introduced to the market in Ireland. The Minister has now signed the Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 which makes the use of these lights by cyclists legal."

-- From Department of Transport press release "Dempsey's Christmas Lights......and other good news for cyclists" on December 28, 2009.

Link to the SI: http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/esi/2009/B27243.pdf

Nanazolie

In most European countries, a hig viz (sorry about earlier typo) jacket is mandatory in the boot of your car, in case you have to stop on the side of the road and step out of your car (one per passenger). I cycle and drive, and when I drive on country roads, a bike, however strong its lights is, will always be more visible with a jacket or bands (the ones you stick to your bike).

And on unlit roads, it would actually be safer for pedestrians to use high viz jackets. Actually, I often see walkers / joggers wearing them. Buggies and strollers even have reflective bands, must be for a reason

Chips Lovell

ednwireland wrote: »

prob more todo with mobile speed cameras being introduced round the country (people arent speeding any more or less just being caught )

That's what I meant alright.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

Link to the SI: http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/esi/2009/B27243.pdf

However as I recall they did not change the law that says the rear light can be no more than 18 inches from the back of the bike. So lights attached to your seat post are probably still illegal.

Nanazolie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why? because they are totally unneeded. why aren't all clothes bright yellow, why don't all bikes have to be painted luminous orange, and cars and buses?

I assume anyone who wears one on a bike is incompetent and has to be treated with extra care tbh.

You're lucky to be only cycling in broad day light or on well-lit roads. Not everyone lives in urban areas.

monument

Nanazolie wrote: »

In most European countries, a hig viz (sorry about earlier typo) jacket is mandatory in the boot of your car, in case you have to stop on the side of the road and step out of your car (one per passenger). I cycle and drive, and when I drive on country roads, a bike, however strong its lights is, will always be more visible with a jacket or bands (the ones you stick to your bike).

And on unlit roads, it would actually be safer for pedestrians to use high viz jackets. Actually, I often see walkers / joggers wearing them. Buggies and strollers even have reflective bands, must be for a reason

I don't care that much if you're only talking about unlit country roads, but it would be a crazy general rule.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However as I recall they did not change the law that says the rear light can be no more than 18 inches from the back of the bike. So lights attached to your seat post are probably still illegal.

I'm willing to see a judge about that one. Would be funny.

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

And on unlit roads, it would actually be safer for pedestrians to use high viz jackets. Actually, I often see walkers / joggers wearing them.

torch is the best option I find when I'm hiking. you can wave and flag it to make it obvious, a reflective strip / jacket is passive and can be easily mistaken for a piece of reflective road furniture like a sign and simply ignored.

Nanazolie wrote: »

Buggies and strollers even have reflective bands, must be for a reason

consumer perception that they add safety value is the only reason they are there, I would question whether there is any benefit in reality.

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

You're lucky to be only cycling in broad day light or on well-lit roads. Not everyone lives in urban areas.

where did I say that?

Even if I'm cycling in Wicklow in the dark I'll still wear all black. The lights are enough.

Lumen

Nanazolie wrote: »

You're lucky to be only cycling in broad day light or on well-lit roads. Not everyone lives in urban areas.

What on earth are you on about?

For some time now, probably almost since the invention of electricity, it has been possible to carry upon one's bicycle equipment designed for the purposes of illumination, commonly known as "lights".

Anyway, why don't cows wear hi-vis jackets and ankle straps?

Nanazolie

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=151174&f=57&h=0

Chips Lovell

If a motorist fails to spot a well lit bike on a unlit road, then they are driving without due care and attention.

Blaming the cyclist is the wrong approach.

Lumen

Nanazolie wrote: »

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=151174&f=57&h=0

I trust you carry a warning triangle on your bike, just in case you need to stop.

seamus

I think the most pertinent question to ask at this point is whether anyone can find any evidence to show that there is a reduction in collisions when both lights and high-vis are used, rather than just lights on their own.

And if so, why don't cars have high-vis strips?

Nanazolie

Lumen wrote: »

I trust you carry a warning triangle on your bike, just in case you need to stop.

No need for sarcasm... Up to you if you don't want to wear one. When studies show that most accidents involving bikes and pedestrians could be avoided just by these. Are you afraid it will ruin your good looks?

TinyExplosions

Nanazolie wrote: »

In most European countries, a hig viz (sorry about earlier typo) jacket is mandatory in the boot of your car, in case you have to stop on the side of the road and step out of your car (one per passenger). I cycle and drive, and when I drive on country roads, a bike, however strong its lights is, will always be more visible with a jacket or bands (the ones you stick to your bike).

I carry a high vis jacket in the rear pocket of my black jersey, along with my tools and a small triangle. That way, if I do have a breakdown at the side of the road, I can put the jacket on and set out the triangle. Otherwise, I just cycle as normal, and my lights make me perfectly visible.

Chips Lovell

Nanazolie wrote: »

No need for sarcasm... Up to you if you don't want to wear one. When studies show that most accidents involving bikes and pedestrians could be avoided just by these. Are you afraid it will ruin your good looks?

What studies?

seamus

Nanazolie wrote: »

When studies show that most accidents involving bikes and pedestrians could be avoided just by these.

[Citation Needed]

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=151174&f=57&h=0

they also drive on the right in Spain, should we copy that too?

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

No need for sarcasm... Up to you if you don't want to wear one. When studies show that most accidents involving bikes and pedestrians could be avoided just by these. Are you afraid it will ruin your good looks?

highlighted the key word, when studies show that then fine, but until then they can be safely ignored. Plenty of studies show that helmets, high viz, etc actually increase accident rates as car drivers take less care around cyclists due to the perception they are less vulnerable than otherwise...

Nanazolie

seamus wrote: »

[Citation Needed]

A study by the American Automobile Association found that of 400 interstate pedestrian fatalities, one third were drivers or passengers who had left their vehicles following an incident, and three-quarters of the fatalities occurred after dark.’

Same link previously posted

seamus

They're pedestrians.

This is the cycling forum. You claimed that studies showed that most accidents involving bikes could be avoided by wearing high-vis.

Again, show me the evidence that high-vis as a supplement to lights on the bike, leads to a reduction in collisions involving cyclists.

Nanazolie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they also drive on the right in Spain, should we copy that too?

They drive everywhere on the right in Europe Mainland, but UK and Ireland. http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm