Letter in Sunday Independent-Anti cyclist rant

cycletheroad

I see their a letter in the Sunday Independent today having a right go at cyclists breaking traffic lights etc.....:eek:

"Please fine our lawless bike hogs"


Sir -- In Ireland when a cyclist encounters a set of traffic lights it's the norm to keep on pedalling be they red, green, or amber -- and if they should collide with traffic, blame the other party and sue for compensation.

So it was with puzzlement that I recently spotted two cyclists stopped at a red light, but as the green light appeared and the bikers pulled away I noticed small Norwegian flags attached to the cycle bags. Those folks hail from a land where if a cyclist breaks the road code they will be issued with a ticket and will have to pay a fine. It would be a neat idea if the authorities here would please copy and start slapping fines on our own native lawless bike hogs.

Paddy O'Brien,

Balbriggan, Co Dublin

4leto

Guilty as charged, but I don't break them if cars are coming.

Its the ould Irish jaywalking thing, us cyclists somehow feel we are pedestrians.

But how about motorist breaking the cyclelanes regulations. I don't know any motorist who got points for parking in or entering a cyclelane.

But that is not an excuse us cyclists should cop on.

Roger Hassenforder

from Sunday September 04 2011

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/please-fine-our-lawless-bike-hogs-2866189.html

:rolleyes:

ThisRegard

Reading the Sunday Independent is a much bigger issue for society than cyclists breaking red lights.

monument

I'd agree with the main point of the letter -- on the spot fines are needed for cyclists.

At the moment, it's craziness that cyclists have to be dragged to court for minor offences (not all red light breaking is minor, but most are). Same with cycling on the footpath.

Lumen

cycletheroad wrote: »

Sir -- In Ireland when a cyclist encounters a set of traffic lights it's the norm to keep on pedalling be they red, green, or amber -- and if they should collide with traffic, blame the other party and sue for compensation.

Sure, Paddy.

I have a double mattress stuffed with compensation. Sometimes I invite my ambulance chasing lawyer round, and we take out all the cash and roll around in it, singing songs about those poor suckers we've sued.

happytramp

It drives me mad that almost every single time I stop at a traffic light some d***head edges closer and closer to the traffic until they spot a break and dart across the road. The main reason it annoys me is that it makes the rest of us look bad. A lot of those people probably don't identify themselves as being 'cyclists' more likely to them a bike is just something the use when they need to and hence don't really give a **** about it makes the cycling 'community' as a whole look.

Beasty

2 days since our last RLJ thread
3 days since the most recent post in the Should traffic laws be enforced thread

Is there really that much more we can debate on the topic of red light jumping?

Moflojo

Cycling is in a transitionary period in this country; we're very much on the verge of being a fully fledged "cycling nation". It'll take a couple of years to iron the kinks out, mainly because new people are taking up cycling almost every single day.

Until then, I will continue to enjoy reading these threads, no matter how frequently they pop up!

BURN THE RLJs!!! BURN THEM ALL IN HELL'S OWN FIRE!!!!!

cyclopath2001

Beasty wrote: »

Is there really that much more we can debate on the topic of red light jumping?

How drivers get worked up over red light offences, but are remarkably mute about widespread offences of failing to stop on amber?

Beasty

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

How drivers get worked up over red light offences, but are remarkably mute about widespread offences of failing to stop on amber?

I don't see how you can draw such a conclusion. I would guess that those drivers who complain when cyclists fail to obey the lights typically obey them themselves (I know I do, both as a cyclist and driver) - there's no getting away from the fact though that a higher proportion of cyclists break red lights than motorists

The position with red lights is clear - red means stop. However with amber it's less clearcut, as although on the face of it amber also means stop you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

Captain Havoc

amber means stop unless it's unsafe to do so, pretty clear cut to me.

-Chris-

Beasty wrote: »

2 days since our last RLJ thread
3 days since the most recent post in the Should traffic laws be enforced thread

Is there really that much more we can debate on the topic of red light jumping?

You need an RLJ Megathread!

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

How drivers get worked up over red light offences, but are remarkably mute about widespread offences of failing to stop on amber?

I'm pretty sure motorist bad behaviour gets brought up every time RLJing is discussed.

Hermy

Beasty wrote: »

I would guess that those drivers who complain when cyclists fail to obey the lights typically obey them themselves...

I have to disagree with that generalisation Beasty. My experience is that those road users who complain most are usually oblivious of their own shortcomings.

cyclopath2001

Beasty wrote: »

However with amber it's less clearcut, as although on the face of it amber also means stop you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

What is very clear to anyone using the roads is that drivers who could stop safely on amber do not, and this is a very significant number.

Add to that the number of drivers who could not stop safely on amber because they were driving too quickly (86% of them break the urban speed limit) and I think we'll find that drivers' moral authority to lecture cyclists on traffic signal observance is practically nil.

Diarmuid

Red light jumping is the cyclists version of driving while talking on the mobile phone.

Redjeep!

Diarmuid wrote: »

Red light jumping is the cyclists version of driving while talking on the mobile phone.

Hahahaha, that's about right. I'd reckon that at any one time, about 1 in 5 motorists are on the phone. *

(* This statistic has absolutely no scientific basis other than my own observation.)

Limestone1

Captain Havoc wrote: »

amber means stop unless it's unsafe to do so, pretty clear cut to me.

incorrect - amber means "red's coming so gun it or you will have to stop" !

reallyunique

2002-2006:
Cyclists killed 59, Car users 1028.
Cyclists injured 1354, Car users 29793
The number motorists killed and injured is a genuinely serious issue affecting many families over the years, let's spend our time ranting about the problems that kill and injure people and forget worrying about our own personal irritations.

Of the 11 cycling fatalities reported to the Gardai in Dublin:
8 killed by left-turning Lorries.
1 vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes
1 vehicle rear-ended a cyclist
1 stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist
Real numbers, real issues.

RLJ threads are great fun but...
There is no evidence to show that RLJing results in a statistically significant number of accidents and I cannot remember a mention of it in a fatal road accident report. RLJing is a trivial matter that annoys many but materially affects almost none. If this is such a problem then why is it that there is no data on it, no journalist researching this scourge, no politician on the rampage to right this wrong and distract us from his own misdeeds? Is it only the occasional angry letter-writer and forum troll who knows the real truth? Find the accident records, the insurance claims, the injured cyclists, pedestrians and motorists, the overworked A&E staff. Then it'll stop being a rant and become a well reasoned argument.

As for the effect of RLJing on the perception of the cycling community, there is no cycling community in the same way that there is no motoring community or shopping community. We cycle, some cycle dangerously some less so. We drive, some dangerously some less so. Cyclists are as prone to breaking the law as anyone else, in fact once they're off the bike they are anyone else.

Obey they law if you must but cycle and drive safely please.

Trojan

RJL? Cool, we got a new acronym

I view cyclists RJLing as equivalent to drivers doing 35 in a 30 zone. It's not really a huge deal to anyone, and almost every driver does it (I'd guess ~99.999% over a long enough time period).

Still, it's good for a rant.

4leto

reallyunique wrote: »

2002-2006:
Cyclists killed 59, Car users 1028.
Cyclists injured 1354, Car users 29793
The number motorists killed and injured is a genuinely serious issue affecting many families over the years, let's spend our time ranting about the problems that kill and injure people and forget worrying about our own personal irritations.

Of the 11 cycling fatalities reported to the Gardai in Dublin:
8 killed by left-turning Lorries.
1 vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes
1 vehicle rear-ended a cyclist
1 stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist
Real numbers, real issues.

RLJ threads are great fun but...
There is no evidence to show that RLJing results in a statistically significant number of accidents and I cannot remember a mention of it in a fatal road accident report. RLJing is a trivial matter that annoys many but materially affects almost none. If this is such a problem then why is it that there is no data on it, no journalist researching this scourge, no politician on the rampage to right this wrong and distract us from his own misdeeds? Is it only the occasional angry letter-writer and forum troll who knows the real truth? Find the accident records, the insurance claims, the injured cyclists, pedestrians and motorists, the overworked A&E staff. Then it'll stop being a rant and become a well reasoned argument.

As for the effect of RLJing on the perception of the cycling community, there is no cycling community in the same way that there is no motoring community or shopping community. We cycle, some cycle dangerously some less so. We drive, some dangerously some less so. Cyclists are as prone to breaking the law as anyone else, in fact once they're off the bike they are anyone else.

Obey they law if you must but cycle and drive safely please.

Excellent post,

I find a good bicycle right side mirror has aided my safety in spades.

But what cracks me up is cars in the cycle lanes on a busy road.

I was cycling the on the coast road towards Howth this morning in poor conditions and people just ignored the lanes and parked whereever. Why arn't these rules enforced, what is the point of having the lane there in the first place.

Dermot Illogical

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-traffic-trial-to-picture-redlight-jumpers-in-the-act-2866542.html

bcmf

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-traffic-trial-to-picture-redlight-jumpers-in-the-act-2866542.html

DRIVERS who jump a red light will be caught on camera under a new trial.

Dublin is to get the country's first red-light enforcement camera, which is due to be tried out at two junctions crossing the city's red line Luas.

Gardai have confirmed that the images from the camera will be used to issue fixed-charge notices to motorists who break red lights at the junctions.

The 12-month trial is in response to a number of collisions between motorists and trams.

Sergeant Jim Molloy at the garda press office said: "This would be the first red-light camera enforcement project in Ireland."

Failure to obey traffic lights can attract two penalty points, or five on conviction. Motorists will be fined €80, or €120 if that remains unpaid after 28 days.

"In accordance with the standard practice in respect of fixed charge notices, prosecutions would be initiated if payment of the fixed charge wasn't received," said Sgt Molloy.

A spokeswoman at Dublin City Council said: "The purpose of this trial is to monitor vehicles breaking red lights at a junction and to ascertain the extent and seriousness of problems and its implications.

"This camera is in a testing and commissioning phase at present."

The trial will involve one camera, which will be moved between the junctions where the Luas red line meets Blackhall Place and Queen Street near Dublin's quays.

Tom Manning, spokesman for the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), said: "The primary issue is the failure of motorists, and cyclists in particular, to stop at the red traffic signal at these junctions, thereby jeopardising their own safety and the safety of Luas passengers."

Mr Manning said motorists who drove on to tram tracks without being able to clear the junction also posed a safety problem.

The RPA will collect data from the trial, along with records of collisions along the red line, and monitor the use of the emergency braking system on trams.

This data will be used to give a better picture of safety issues along the Luas red line.

Collisions are less frequent on the Luas green line, as it intersects with fewer busy streets because it was built on the former Harcourt Street railway line.

- Cian Ginty

manwithaplan

Lumen wrote: »

Sure, Paddy.

Careful now

Lurching

Id assume this means they'd just count the amount of cyclists breaking lights, as opposed to the cameras being capable of doing anything about it.

Eitherway, I doubt that many cyclists break reds across Luas lines.

studiorat

So the RPA are policing traffic now. Not sure if I like the idea of that...

Lurching wrote: »

Id assume this means they'd just count the amount of cyclists breaking lights, as opposed to the cameras being capable of doing anything about it.

Get off and walk the bike through the red light...
They'll want reg plates on bikes next.

ashleey

Most of those cameras in London wouldn't get triggered by a bike otherwise pedestrians would set them off. Plus what about no number plates? Or us that coming next?!

tomasrojo

I'm reasonably certain that more cyclists break the lights at that junction than motorists, because that's true of most junctions.

However, I'm not sure whether

The primary issue is the failure of [...] cyclists in particular, to stop at the red traffic signal at these junctions

Perhaps cyclists are making a total nuisance of themselves here, but they don't block the junction and there hasn't yet been a collision with a cyclist that I know of. The problem, as far as I can guess, is mostly motorists chancing the junction and finding themselves stuck in the middle, blocking the progress of the Luas.

And, as already stated, I don't see what these cameras can do about cyclists anyway.

tomasrojo

From my point of view as a sometime pedestrian, I'd certainly like to see more of these cameras.

cdaly_

bcmf wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-traffic-trial-to-picture-redlight-jumpers-in-the-act-2866542.html

DRIVERS who jump a red light will be caught on camera under a new trial.

Dublin is to get the country's first red-light enforcement camera, which is due to be tried out at two junctions crossing the city's red line Luas.

I can see he headlines now...

some newspaper wrote:

Red light camera leads to massive surge in rear-end collisions

"Sure the light was only orange and didn't the eejit stop!"...

kincsem

If all cyclists stop at red lights will motorists be happy to be stuck behind a large group of cyclists?

Mucco

reallyunique has already made my main points about RLJing - it makes a lot of noise in the press, but no damage. The only real damage is that the noise distracts from other road safety issues.

I was thinking about the car v bike with regard to RLJing. At a junction, every cyclist has the opportunity to jump the light, and many do. However, only the first motorist does. If the first jumps, then the second has the opportunity to and so on. So if one car jumps the light, and the second doesn't, that means 50% of the cars that could jump the light have done so. If two cars jump, that rises to 67% etc.....

However, the main point is that 1500kg of metal doing 50kph is going to be hugely more dangerous than 10kg of metal doing 20 kph, and that is where we should focus our attentions. Obviously, posting in a cycling forum is not going to help with this issue, but it annoys me that newspapers publish these letters without focussing on impact on the killed/seriuosly injured rates that reallyunique posted.

Gophur

kincsem wrote: »

If all cyclists stop at red lights will motorists be happy to be stuck behind a large group of cyclists?

What has motorists being "happy" got to do with it?

We either have Road Traffic laws being enforced or we don't? Every law that's broken runs the risk of adversely affecting someone.

Captain Havoc

Am I the only person in the country who tries not to break any laws?

Kintarō Hattori

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Am I the only person in the country who tries not to break any laws?

No, you're not. I often feel like an idiot as I wait at every single traffic light and watch many a cyclist whizz by.

seamus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

No, you're not. I often feel like an idiot as I wait at every single traffic light and watch many a cyclist whizz by.

Then you're not doing it right. You're supposed to feel smug when you freewheel by them 100m down the road. Preferably while doing something nonchalant, like riding no-hands and lighting up a cigar or something.

reallyunique

@Captain H: You definitely aren't the only one trying not to break laws. Many people try this and good luck to you all. Social responsibility is one of the hallmarks of our society and we could not live the relatively happy and care-free lives we do without the rule of law.
That said, following each law to the letter is mildly obsessive when it produces no good effect. Rigid policing of every offense, however trivial, lends a country an authoritarian feel. Tolerance toward law breakers and an openness to the possibility of flaws in our rule base can produce a more caring and easy going society.

We each get to chose the world we live in. Handy.

coolbeans

reallyunique wrote: »

@Captain H: You definitely aren't the only one trying not to break laws. Many people try this and good luck to you all. Social responsibility is one of the hallmarks of our society and we could not live the relatively happy and care-free lives we do without the rule of law.
That said, following each law to the letter is mildly obsessive when it produces no good effect. Rigid policing of every offense, however trivial, lends a country an authoritarian feel. Tolerance toward law breakers and an openness to the possibility of flaws in our rule base can produce a more caring and easy going society.

We each get to chose the world we live in. Handy.

Cyclists breaking the lights lets down those who don't no matter what way you dress it up. Your selective interpretation of the law also gives motorists grounds to abuse cyclists many of whom tar all on a bike as road users with no respect for the law. Show respect and stop when you should and we'll all get along a little better. Much of the aggro out there is caused by selfish self justification for illegal actions which then, quite understandably, raises the ire of those who try to do the right thing.
I have one rule. If the law doesn't endanger me then I cannot rationally defend breaking it no matter how inconvenient or silly it may seem to you.

Mucco

coolbeans wrote: »

Your selective interpretation of the law also gives motorists grounds to abuse cyclists many of whom tar all on a bike as road users with no respect for the law.

I don't buy this argument. The majority of motorists admit to driving faster than the speed limit. So why do they write letters about cyclists, and not motorists? It's to do with 'them' and 'us' in my view.

The other issue I have, is that the trafic laws were not written with cyclists in mind. A 10kg bike is not a 1500kg car. At a red pedestrian light, I can get off my bike, walk 2 metres, and get on my bike again, or I can cycle through at walking pace. Both are equally safe/dangerous.

monument

Mucco wrote: »

The other issue I have, is that the trafic laws were not written with cyclists in mind. A 10kg bike is not a 1500kg car. At a red pedestrian light, I can get off my bike, walk 2 metres, and get on my bike again, or I can cycle through at walking pace. Both are equally safe/dangerous.

I think I can speak for a huge amount of pedestrians when I say no thanks to that suggestion. Cyclists should and legially do have to stop at a red light and allow pedestrians to cross.

Mucco

monument wrote: »

I think I can speak for a huge amount of pedestrians when I say no thanks to that suggestion. Cyclists should and legially do have to stop at a red light and allow pedestrians to cross.

You're missing my point, which is that walking with the bike is regarded as safe and therefore legal, whereas moving at walking pace while on the bike is regarded as dangerous and therefore illegal. In reality, they are both the same, ie not dangerous.
I am not talking about ploughing through a herd of pedestrians, I am talking about when the pedestrian has already crossed. I could equally have mentioned a road junction where there are no cars.
My contention is that a bicycle is not a car, and treating it as such is wrong.

Lumen

Mucco wrote: »

You're missing my point, which is that walking with the bike is regarded as safe and therefore legal, whereas moving at walking pace while on the bike is regarded as dangerous and therefore illegal. In reality, they are both the same, ie not dangerous.

If you actually intended to ride at walking pace then you'd be happy to walk, since there would be no speed advantage to riding.

reallyunique

Cycling safely is important and dangerous cycling should be punished appropriately. It is the responsibility of all road users to exercise care at all times and be courteous to other road users. I don't believe that anyone posting in this thread has suggested otherwise (though I may have missed something).

@Coolbeans: On the subject of attitudes to cyclists I refer you to my previous statement (we are individuals not a "community of cyclists"). Some drivers drive dangerously but it would be unfair to generalise and claim that all motorists do. If any group is not to be treated fairly then an excuse will be found, valid or not.

I suggest that the "aggro out there" comes from an assumption of selfish self justification for illegal but safe actions on the part of other road users. Why is the legality of the action a concern, even the road safety posters advocate "safety first".
That a law does not endanger a person does not mean that it does not limit them. If obeying the law has no positive effect and breaking it has no negative effect then it is simply irrelevant.

I do not suggest that the regulations regarding traffic lights (as I understand them) are silly. That they are inconvenient would be of little matter if they served some greater purpose. For cars they do and when I am in a car I obey them, often to the irritation of other drivers, they are inconvenient but I would not think for a moment of breaking the lights as it would be generally unsafe. For cyclist and pedestrians lights serve a lesser purpose.

The cyclist almost always bears the brunt of any accident and thus the primary deterrent for them acting in a dangerous way is the potential harm for themselves. This is not so for a driver and hence the greater requirement to be bound more rigidly by the rules and the greater punishment for any breach.

@Mucco: Sorry but my bike (with me on it) is much nearer 120kg, no car I admit but no lightweight either

@Monument: As a pedestrian, I certainly find that cyclists speeding through junctions, crossings etc are quite scary and could give me a nasty bang if they hit full-on. That said, the majority of cyclists who go through red lights do tend to do so with care and ensure that there are no pedestrians crossing (some don't but then some cars don't either).

galwaycyclist

Mucco wrote: »

The other issue I have, is that the trafic laws were not written with cyclists in mind. A 10kg bike is not a 1500kg car. At a red pedestrian light, I can get off my bike, walk 2 metres, and get on my bike again, or I can cycle through at walking pace. Both are equally safe/dangerous.

I point this out only for information but I understand that it is against the law to dismount and wheel a bike against a red light. From memory I think the case was police v wetherill 1953.


That aside I like this debate we need a proper discussion of rlj'ing from the pro side.

monument

Mucco wrote: »

You're missing my point, which is that walking with the bike is regarded as safe and therefore legal, whereas moving at walking pace while on the bike is regarded as dangerous and therefore illegal. In reality, they are both the same, ie not dangerous.
I am not talking about ploughing through a herd of pedestrians, I am talking about when the pedestrian has already crossed. I could equally have mentioned a road junction where there are no cars.
My contention is that a bicycle is not a car, and treating it as such is wrong.

My contention which is backed by the law, is red means stop. Cyclists should not have discretion in this.

studiorat

monument wrote: »

My contention which is backed by the law, is red means stop. Cyclists should not have discretion in this.

In law perhaps. But they should have discretion regarding left turns IMO.

reallyunique

We should walk, cycle and drive safely as it benefits us all and I have seen no one here suggest otherwise, the illegality of red light jumping seems also unchallenged. Punishment would doubtless increase the level of obedience but without any demonstrable positive effect. Why would further obedience be desirable?

The rules (as I read them) apply to cyclists and cars alike. Cyclists and motorists use their discretion and apply the rules as they see fit. All road users have discretion as to whether to stop on red or not. Both drivers and cyclists use that discretion and most, regardless of whether they decide to stop or not, seem to make the right choice as backed up by the (limited) information available.

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I point this out only for information but I understand that it is against the law to dismount and wheel a bike against a red light. From memory I think the case was police v wetherill 1953.

I think your right, but I can't be bothered to trawl through Robert Pearse to confirm it. You can however shoulder the bike, cyclo-cross-style.

Chips Lovell

I'd take issue with this notion that red light jumping is some kind of harmless practice. Every day you see the numpties creeping beyond the lights looking for a break in traffic. And it's often enough you see one getting it wrong and narrowly avoiding getting milled by a car.

That's to say nothing about the effect that widespread disregard of the rules has on public perception of cyclists. I'm sick and tired of getting abuse on the road and I feel much of is driven by the image cyclists have.

This thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056358089) is a classic example of what the public thinks of us all.

Lusk Doyle

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'd take issue with this notion that red light jumping is some kind of harmless practice. Every day you see the numpties creeping beyond the lights looking for a break in traffic. And it's often enough you see one getting it wrong and narrowly avoiding getting milled by a car.

That's to say nothing about the effect that widespread disregard of the rules has on public perception of cyclists. I'm sick and tired of getting abuse on the road and I feel much of is driven by the image cyclists have.

This thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056358089) is a classic example of what the public thinks of us all.

The attempted rationslisation of the light jumping as a safety mechanism is what gets me.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Then you're not doing it right. You're supposed to feel smug when you freewheel by them 100m down the road. Preferably while doing something nonchalant, like riding no-hands and lighting up a cigar or something.

Swirling a glass of brandy would be very effective.