Letter in Sunday Independent-Anti cyclist rant

cyclopath2001

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

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

This happens all the time in 'motors' either justifying failing to stop on amber or exceeding the speed limit.

But, it would be interesting to see what would happen if all traffic signals were switched off.

jaqian

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This happens all the time in 'motors' either justifying failing to stop on amber or exceeding the speed limit.

But, it would be interesting to see what would happen if all traffic signals were switched off.

Traffic would flow better and people would be more mannerly.

Kintarō Hattori

tomasrojo wrote: »

Swirling a glass of brandy would be very effective.

I'll bring a bottle of brandy with me from now on.

monument

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But, it would be interesting to see what would happen if all traffic signals were switched off.

jaqian wrote: »

Traffic would flow better and people would be more mannerly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJKe1mGHYlg

cyclingrules

As some of you may have read over the past few days on this forum, I was recently stopped by a Garda after breaking a red light. I admit to crossing the white line at the lights - so I've committed the offence. No contest there, if I'm being that pedantic.

However, the actual offence was committed when I moved very slowly into the (green) pedestrian crossing in front of all the cars when my light was still red. This is where I technically broke the law, like a number of other cyclists that morning. There were no pedestrians crossing when I did this.

I waited here, in front of the cars, as it is the safest place to be. I can now position myself in a place where I cannot be pushed into the kerb, or have to deal with cars parked in the cycle lane across the junction. ASL's exist for this reason. It cannot reasonably be argued that what I did was unsafe, or immoral. Illegal yes, but had there been a advanded stop line(ASL), I wouldn't have done it.

Now the Garda it seems, did not punish me for crossing the line at the pedestrian lights - even though this was where the offence occured. Others had crossed the line too, as people to every single morning.

What I did next caused the Garda to react. After waiting at the pedestrian lights for a while, and realisng that there was noone waiting to cross, and that my lights were due to go in a few seconds time - I moved out into the junction to see the Gard beckoning me to come over to her. I slowly cycled across to her to learn that I would now find myself in court over the matter, and would face a fine(€240) of over double what a car driver would recieve(€80 + 2 PP's) for the same offence - something which I cannot afford to pay. Hence the reason I'm on a bicycle. :rolleyes:

What was I caught for? Slowly crossing the line like many others? Being a bit cheeky and anticipating the lights? Actually endangering anyone? I don't know. It's ridiculous really - especially condisering that by moving into the junction earlier, I am even further away from the danger that cars pose while turning. My goal was to get away from cars which often leave me with very litte room as quickly as possible.

Had I crossed the line(breaking the law) and not moved any further out, I doubt I'd be sitting here waiting on a court date. I stand by the fact that crossing the white line improves my safety, and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. I effectively made my own ASL since a car had pulled right up to the line and there technically isn't on there anyway.

It is crazy situation when I can be fined more than a car driver, for something so small, which was honestly carried out in an extremely safe manner. All that got me stopped was moving off too early, had I walked across - no problem at all!

I've no problem with fining cyclist who are genuinely dangerous, but a court date is so archaic! Wast of absolutely everybody's time!

Oh well, sorry about the rant! Night!

monument

If cars parked in the cycle lane are that much of a danger you really need to re-evaluate your cycling and way of thinking.

Not breaking the law may have slowed you down, but it would not have automatically lead to danger.

For your own sake you just have to get over the idea that you don't get to pick and choice the laws you obey, not at least with clear cut things like red lights. You can look for a change in law, for an advance stop line to be put in for cyclists or for illegal parking to be clamped down on (bad pun) but in the meanwhile you have to live with the law.

Roger Hassenforder

whats the offence as it appears on the summons?

Lusk Doyle

cyclingrules wrote: »

As some of you may have read over the past few days on this forum, I was recently stopped by a Garda after breaking a red light. I admit to crossing the white line at the lights - so I've committed the offence. No contest there, if I'm being that pedantic.

However, the actual offence was committed when I moved very slowly into the (green) pedestrian crossing in front of all the cars when my light was still red. This is where I technically broke the law, like a number of other cyclists that morning. There were no pedestrians crossing when I did this.

I waited here, in front of the cars, as it is the safest place to be. I can now position myself in a place where I cannot be pushed into the kerb, or have to deal with cars parked in the cycle lane across the junction. ASL's exist for this reason. It cannot reasonably be argued that what I did was unsafe, or immoral. Illegal yes, but had there been a advanded stop line(ASL), I wouldn't have done it.

Now the Garda it seems, did not punish me for crossing the line at the pedestrian lights - even though this was where the offence occured. Others had crossed the line too, as people to every single morning.

What I did next caused the Garda to react. After waiting at the pedestrian lights for a while, and realisng that there was noone waiting to cross, and that my lights were due to go in a few seconds time - I moved out into the junction to see the Gard beckoning me to come over to her. I slowly cycled across to her to learn that I would now find myself in court over the matter, and would face a fine(€240) of over double what a car driver would recieve(€80 + 2 PP's) for the same offence - something which I cannot afford to pay. Hence the reason I'm on a bicycle. :rolleyes:

What was I caught for? Slowly crossing the line like many others? Being a bit cheeky and anticipating the lights? Actually endangering anyone? I don't know. It's ridiculous really - especially condisering that by moving into the junction earlier, I am even further away from the danger that cars pose while turning. My goal was to get away from cars which often leave me with very litte room as quickly as possible.

Had I crossed the line(breaking the law) and not moved any further out, I doubt I'd be sitting here waiting on a court date. I stand by the fact that crossing the white line improves my safety, and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. I effectively made my own ASL since a car had pulled right up to the line and there technically isn't on there anyway.

It is crazy situation when I can be fined more than a car driver, for something so small, which was honestly carried out in an extremely safe manner. All that got me stopped was moving off too early, had I walked across - no problem at all!

I've no problem with fining cyclist who are genuinely dangerous, but a court date is so archaic! Wast of absolutely everybody's time!

Oh well, sorry about the rant! Night!

Was this not done to death on Friday?

clonmahon

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.

I agree with this. I accept the argument about how the risks are not the same with 10kg bike as they are with a 1000kg car, but it is not about the physics, it is about the perception of motorists. And cyclists RLJing really annoys them and gets us cyclists a bad name. This has all kinds of other negative conquences for us. It also annoys me when I respect traffic lights and see other cyclists going through red lights. We need the respect and acceptance of motorists to cycle safely, RLJ is compromising this.

Chips Lovell

clonmahon wrote: »

I agree with this. I accept the argument about how the risks are not the same with 10kg bike as they are with a 1000kg car, but it is not about the physics, it is about the perception of motorists. And cyclists RLJing really annoys them and gets us cyclists a bad name. This has all kinds of other negative conquences for us. It also annoys me when I respect traffic lights and see other cyclists going through red lights. We need the respect and acceptance of motorists to cycle safely, RLJ is compromising this.

It's more than that I think. Yes, a cyclist is less likely to kill or injure someone on a bike, but they can be hit too.

It is the height of arrogance on a cyclist's part if they think that just because they're assuming most of the risk they're entitled to do what they want. If I found myself killing or injuring a cyclist in a car, even if the cyclist was at fault, I don't think I'd ever get over it.

HivemindXX

I'm not sure how we are having another RLJ debate so soon but I have a point anyway...

Any time I have questioned a motorist going through an amber light instead of stopping I'm told the rule is that you stop unless it would be unsafe to do so. This clause is presumably present to stop a situation where people feel they should slam on the brakes and skid to a halt because the light goes amber when they are five feet from the line. However what is 'safe' is open to individual interpretation and people choose to interpet it in a way that allows them to totally ignore amber lights.


Red is definitive. Go through a red light you are breaking the law. Go through an Amber light and you might be breaking the law, it's kind of hard to know for sure. This is why ambers are ignored.

• The majority of cyclists I see breaking red lights are perfectly safe and don't inconvenience anyone (although they probably annoy some motorists).

• Most days I see someone who either through carelessness or simple lack of regard cuts it too close and requires a motorist or pedestrian to take evasive action when they shouldn't have to.

• A couple of times a week I see cyclists break a red light and track stand between two lanes of cross traffic. Lurching back and forth from one lane to the next waiting for the other lane to clear so they can proceed.

If you legitimise breaking red lights with a vague caveat about only doing it when safe to do so you are legitimising all three kinds of RLJ I see. I think the idiots in the third case are going to do that anyway and I guess in the crazy, topsy turvy reasoning whereby breaking the red light is the only safe way to proceed means they already feel justified in doing so.

I'm more concerned about the second case, where cyclists who don't pay enough attention feel it's ok to shoot through junctions after a cursory glance or cyclists who are a bit too full of themselves decide it's perfectly safe to thread the needle through a pack of pedestrians at full speed. If stopping at a red light was actually made optional for cyclists I think we'd see a hell of a lot more of that sort of thing.

radia

rp wrote: »

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.

This really surprises me. I'd have though someone who dismounts and wheels the bike becomes a pedestrian, just as if they were wheeling a pram, and can do whatever pedestrians can legally do. So they could wheel the bike across the road if the lights are red for traffic but green for pedestrians, or wheel it around a left turn on the footpath without having to wait for a red light to turn green for left-turning traffic, or wheel it along the pavement against the flow of traffic on a one-way street, or in a pedestrianised area?

If I'm wheeling my bike along the footpath while chatting to my pedestrian friend, can I not be a pedestrian too? Or if I have a puncture?

Doctor Bob

HivemindXX wrote: »

Any time I have questioned a motorist going through an amber light instead of stopping I'm told the rule is that you stop unless it would be unsafe to do so. This clause is presumably present to stop a situation where people feel they should slam on the brakes and skid to a halt because the light goes amber when they are five feet from the line. However what is 'safe' is open to individual interpretation and people choose to interpet it in a way that allows them to totally ignore amber lights.

I posted on this before, but the link in that post seems to be dead. It concerned a Young Scientist project called 'Red For Go' that attempted to quantify red light breaking at a particular junction. Fortunately I found another report on it, so I'll quote the content here in case this link dies too!

http://www.leavingcert.net/skoool/senior.asp?id=4505

Students Isabel Ghose and India McGlynn, both 12 years of age decided to focus their entry for the BT Young Scientist Exhibition on road users and pose the question; “Do road users obey traffic signals?” The girls conducted a survey of traffic passing the junction of Northumberland Road and Haddington Road over a six-week period, by assessing the behaviour of road users during the period of 16.00 and 17.00, in terms of their compliance with traffic lights. The survey assessed how many road users break the lights despite having sufficient time to stop.

The findings from the survey were fascinating. Of all vehicles they recorded, 86.23% broke the lights. It showed that not only do most road users not obey traffic signals but also they deliberately break the lights rather than wait for the lights to change. The findings have prompted the girls to suggest that cameras should be installed at junctions such as that recorded in the project and those found to be breaking the lights face penalty points and fines. The findings have been passed onto the Road Safety Authority and the Garda Siochana.



Brian Farrell, Communications Manager with the Road Safety Authority presents students, Isabel Ghose and India McGlynn of Loreto College, Stephen’s Green with the BT Young Scientist Award for their project ‘Red for Go’, which won 1st prize in the Social and Behavioural category.

As I understand it, this includes any vehicle that broke the lights when circumstances did not require it, including those who could have slowed for an amber, i.e. it's not simply a head count of red light breakers, but also includes amber accelerators.