Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

RossieMan

Why do all cyclists get painted with the same brush?

Just because some break the laws, not all of us do.

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

As I say "You could argue..." so they could also not see you.

You said I shouldn't have moved off because I couldn't be sure the road is clear. Take that to its logical conclusion. Nobody at either side of the bridge should cross it. Ever.

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

You said I shouldn't have moved off because I couldn't be sure the road is clear. Take that to its logical conclusion. Nobody at either side of the bridge should cross it. Ever.

Thank you for validating my point that both of you had the right to be there.

monument

The OP seems strangely unwilling to provide the location, even after been asked a few times, so I'm suspecting something amiss and am very close to closing the thread.

Also note accusing people of trolling in-tread is against the rules.

As usual, do not reply to this notice.

- moderator

bigar

RossieMan wrote: »

Why do all cyclists get painted with the same brush?

Just because some break the laws, not all of us do.

No one broke the law here. To generalise: just another motorist who was delayed 30 seconds by cyclists and decides to spend his whole Sunday moaning about it

TheBandicoot

monument wrote: »

Also note accusing people of trolling in-tread is against the rules.

Isn't that exactly what this is? :

monument wrote: »

The OP seems strangely unwilling to provide the location, even after been asked a few times, so I'm suspecting something amiss

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

No one broke the law here. To generalise: just another motorist who was delayed 30 seconds by cyclists and decides to spend his whole Sunday moaning about it.

I don't mind being delayed. I do mind people behaving stupidly on the road.

Not sure what the conspiracy theory is as regards to location, but it's the bridge beside Leixlip Confey train station.

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

I don't mind being delayed. I do mind people behaving stupidly on the road.

Amen to that!

it's the bridge beside Leixlip Confey train station.

Thanks, I will go there and measure the time the lights are green. Will be nice addition to my black book with crossings where the time between green is to short for cyclist to cross safely.

I may even see the two old cyclists. They do not even know they are now minor celebrities.

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

Amen to that!



Thanks, I will go there and measure the time the lights are green. Will be nice addition to my black book with crossings where the time between green is to short for cyclist to cross safely.

I may even see the two old cyclists. They do not even know they are now minor celebrities.

Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

monument

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what this is? :

Some clues highlighted for you:



Read the charter.

- moderator

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

Which side of the signal-controlled bridge were you coming from, the North or the South?

In which direction were the two elderly cyclists heading, and how were they "going the wrong way"?

What is the speed limit on that stretch of road?

How long is the interval between the red and green phases of the traffic signals? By which I mean, if I get the green light, how much time do I have to cross over the bridge before the traffic coming from the other side gets the green?

beauf

Its a poorly designed system there. You have to slow down very slow over that crest as you can meet a car or anything coming the other way. I've often met a car coming late over that bridge. If this was a regular route, you'd have experienced that a few times, and be expecting it. Of course someone going over it the first time wouldn't be expecting it. Which is why you have to expect to meet someone inexperienced with the junction every-time you go over it.

Cyclist can't win here. Stay on the road and its dangerous for them, unless they can go as fast in wake a car. Go on the pavement, and its illegal.

Alternatively if everyone just took it easy, they should see each other in enough time.

Iwannahurl

If you're familiar with the location I'd say you'd be well placed to identify shortcomings with the traffic controls or whatever.

However, this thread has been framed as a Rules of the Road issue, so I'm very interested in knowing how the "rules" (etc) apply in the situation as described by the OP.

Carawaystick

corktina wrote: »

well! you live and learn...I thought you had to proceed with caution at all times.

No, when the lights are amber
You've to stop...

monument

dukedalton wrote: »

Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

The answer is longer red time on both side... or, you know, the local authority having a bit of respect for their obligations to all road users.

It's a design issue, not a rules of the road issue. As long as the cyclists passed on green, they are not breaking any laws.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

The answer is longer red time on both side... or, you know, the local authority having a bit of respect for their obligations to all road users.

It's a design issue, not a rules of the road issue. As long as the cyclists passed on green, they are not breaking any laws.

Some of the questions I asked above have been at least partially answered.

dukedalton wrote: »

Lance Armstrong himself wouldn't be able to cross up and over that bridge before the lights turned red. So for two elderly people to attempt to do it was the height of stupidity. In the event, they made it less than half way. The safe thing to do would have been to dismount and walk over the footpath. But from what I've read on here, common sense and the pro-cyclist brigade seem to be uneasy bedfellows.

dukedalton wrote: »

Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

Absent all the salient facts, all I can say at this stage is that it looks to me as if the traffic signals and general road layout in this location are not set up with cyclists in mind. The OP says that not even Lance Armstrong could cross the bridge on a bike before the lights change, and if such is the case then it cannot be framed as a Rules of the Road issue. It's more ramified than that, I would suggest.

galwaycyclist

dukedalton wrote: »

Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

No it is very much todays argument. You have now admitted that, you yourself, expect meet traffic coming the other way on this stretch even when you entered on green. But appears that you only feel the need to come on an internet bulletin board and complain about it when that traffic is elderly people on bikes who pose no physical threat to you whatsoever.

corktina

Carawaystick wrote: »

No, when the lights are amber
You've to stop...

stop with caution... :-) except in Cork where if you stopped , some guy would punt you up the rear end (and not in a good way)

SeanW

corktina wrote: »

stop with caution... :-) except in Cork where if you stopped , some guy would punt you up the rear end (and not in a good way)

Is it ever "in a good way?" :rolleyes:

John_C

Just to be clear, none of the cyclists mentioned in the opening post were breaking a rule of the road?

No Pants

John_C wrote: »

Just to be clear, none of the cyclists mentioned in the opening post were breaking a rule of the road?

As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way.

Without someone to verify the colour of the light as the cyclists passed it, it's impossible to say.

It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other.

No.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No it is very much todays argument. You have now admitted that, you yourself, expect meet traffic coming the other way on this stretch even when you entered on green. But appears that you only feel the need to come on an internet bulletin board and complain about it when that traffic is elderly people on bikes who pose no physical threat to you whatsoever.

They might if they got angry!

I've noticed some other features of the identified location that might have some relevance:

• The distance between the two sets of traffic lights is approximately 220 metres, according to Google Maps.
• There is a side road, south of the bridge iirc, which is also signalised.
• There is a discontinuous footpath on one side of the bridge only.
• No pedestrian crossings are provided at the traffic signals, despite the presence of residences in the area, as well as sports/leisure facilities apparently.
• There are induction loops at both sets of lights.

The OP says that not even Lance Armstrong could make it over the bridge on a bike before the lights changed, and, despite framing the issue as one of compliance with the Rules of the Road, seems to believe that elderly cyclists should dismount, walk on the discontinuous footpath, and perhaps cross the road where no facilities are provided to do so, in order to facilitate the passage of motorised traffic.

Given the distance involved and the presence of induction loops, my guess is that it is likely that cyclists will pass through a green light, only to face oncoming motorised traffic that has triggered the induction loop on the other side. Plausible?

cdebru

corktina wrote: »

he's on a one lane bridge controlled by lights and his is green. He's entitled to think he wont meet someone coming at him. It's probably the design of the light system to blame in that it doesn't allow cyclists enough time to reach the crown of the rise before allowing traffic through the other way.

A green light only allows you to proceed with caution if the way is clear. On any of these kind of light controlled bridges you should always be anticipating slow moving traffic, and never just presume the way will be clear for you.

corktina

why so? the lights should be designed so that the slowest traffic crossing them will reach the other side before that light goes green for opposing traffic,especially in the case where visibility is impaired on a hump-back bridge

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

why so? the lights should be designed so that the slowest traffic crossing them will reach the other side before that light goes green for opposing traffic,especially in the case where visibility is impaired on a hump-back bridge

because you waste huge amounts of time catering to the 1% then, rather than having got be aware and maybe 1 in 1,000,000 times you lose 10 seconds rather than every time. Less time wasted, less fuel burnt, less traffic...

corktina

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because you waste huge amounts of time catering to the 1% then, rather than having got be aware and maybe 1 in 1,000,000 times you lose 10 seconds rather than every time. Less time wasted, less fuel burnt, less traffic...less elderly cyclists

fyp

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

fyp

:rolleyes:

No Pants

cdebru wrote: »

A green light only allows you to proceed with caution if the way is clear. On any of these kind of light controlled bridges you should always be anticipating slow moving traffic, and never just presume the way will be clear for you.

What? I always thought that a green light meant that you could proceed with all possible haste, cutting down obstacles, organic or otherwise, like a lawnmower through grass.

beauf

corktina wrote: »

why so? the lights should be designed so that the slowest traffic crossing them will reach the other side before that light goes green for opposing traffic,especially in the case where visibility is impaired on a hump-back bridge

Its generally a good idea to expect someone breaking the rules.

corktina

beauf wrote: »

Its generally a good idea to expect someone breaking the rules.

in this case though, it seems to me no one was breaking the rules...

beauf

corktina wrote: »

in this case though, it seems to me no one was breaking the rules...

Irrelevant. Driving to anticipate the lowest common denominator (someone breaking the rules) would encompass this situation also.

corktina

fixing the lights so they are safe would get better results

Iwannahurl

No Pants wrote: »

What? I always thought that a green light meant that you could proceed with all possible haste, cutting down obstacles, organic or otherwise, like a lawnmower through grass.

Red means stop, green means go, and amber means go faster.

bigar

bigar wrote: »

The driver seemed just fine and was able to stop. Motorists (and pedestrians) often seem to go into "what if" situations when trying to blame cyclist for road conditions.

They have to follow the "what if" logic because the actual facts of the matter (number of people seriously injured or killed by cyclists) don't support the argument that cyclists are a "menace", or any sort of serious threat.

That's why all these threads involve anecdotes about the cyclist who "nearly killed me" or whatever.

Surveyor11

camel jockey wrote: »

The levels of cyclist compliance with the rules of the road in Dublin City centre is very disappointing. Braking red lights, cycling the wrong way on one way streets etc. The level of respect that many cyclists show pedestrians is very disheartening, particularly when many cyclists have a problem with their own treatment by motorists.

TBH, for all vehicles and road users compliance is abysmal. Only real solution is cameras on the lights, as they do in the UK. Enforcement and harsh fines for all road users who break the law.

I get the Luas into town a few times a week, and walk from Jervis to the south side for meetings. Here's a few non-scientific observations:

Pedestrian Crossing at Millennium bridge - last week while waiting to cross, a 40' truck continues through the green man crossing here, much to the bemusement of the Spanish tourists waiting to cross. A previous week, I had to physically put my hand out and stop the person behind me, busy texting at a green man, but oblivious to the UPC van racing down the quay, straight through the green light. I'm surprised through by the amount of cyclists using this pedestrian bridge - I thought it was pedestrian only?

Dame St / Georges Street is a peach of a junction for non-compliance of all road users - the Gardaí would clean up here on fines. Alas, even they couldn't be bothered stopping motorists and other road users breaking the red lights here, as the below accounts were done in eyeshot of 2 squad cars.

You usually get the odd cyclist barrelling through the red lights, or cycling on the wrong side of the road at the Spar, but on Wednesday morning last I counted no fewer than 6 cars breaking the red light heading towards Trinity - straight through a pedestrian crossing. I had beckon to the 7th car to stop to allow me and a few others cross, which she duly did. Next day, same time, waiting to ross to get to St. Stephen's green direction, 2 cars and 2 taxis break the red lights in the same junction. At the same time, a private bus breaks to red light at the Spar, almost T-bones a cyclist who's taken the green light through the junction. Not perturbed, the bus driver continues around the corner, holding up the traffic coming from Trinity towards Dublin Castle.

So that's 10 cars and a Bus on one junction in Dublin in a very short space of time. Now, I'm not condoning a cyclist breaking a red lights, per the [EMAIL="tw@t"]tw@t[/EMAIL] in front of me in Lucan this morning, but the fact is amongst Irish drivers we are incapable of sharing the road in a responsible and courteous manner. It's me, me, me outta my way for a sizable minority of road users.

foggy_lad

THe location in this thread, the bridge in Confey Leixlip is not so much regulated by teraffic lights because it is dangerously narrow but moreso because of the level of traffic using the bridge.

The bridge is easily wide enough for a car and two cyclists riding two abreast to pass each other without incident but if the driver of the car is "hogging the road" and not "keeping left" there will not be room for anyone else on the bridge.

beauf

corktina wrote: »

fixing the lights so they are safe would get better results

Better results than what. Less hypothetical accidents, or real accidents?

How do you suggest you fix the lights for this kind of junction to facilitate slow traffic? You can't. Its an unsuitable junction end of. They should have a sign for cyclists to dismount, and cars to proceed with caution at a slow speed. Or widen the bridge its unsuitable the traffic its carrying now.

07Lapierre

dukedalton wrote: »

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

ANSWER: Yes...If caught, (just like any other road user).

Aard

FWIW, according to openstreetmap there is a road and bridge in planning about a kilometre east of Leixlip Confey, which will link the M4 at Weston to Ongar. Perhaps the old bridge (i.e. the one under discussion) could be turned into a cycle/walking route, much like they do in the Netherlands when they build new roads.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.3702/-6.4693

beauf

Those lights are a stop gap solution that are a decade past their sell by date.

Grandpa Hassan

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Red means stop, green means go, and amber means go faster.

And there's a special rule for the first 3 seconds of a red light which says 'floor it'

Surveyor11

Aard wrote: »

FWIW, according to openstreetmap there is a road and bridge in planning about a kilometre east of Leixlip Confey, which will link the M4 at Weston to Ongar. Perhaps the old bridge (i.e. the one under discussion) could be turned into a cycle/walking route, much like they do in the Netherlands when they build new roads.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.3702/-6.4693

But, but, but, they don't even pay road tax :eek: (there, I said it). Great idea though - I know this junction and there's easy access to the Canal from here.

Iwannahurl

Surveyor11 wrote: »

TBH, for all vehicles and road users compliance is abysmal.

...

Gardaí would clean up here on fines. Alas, even they couldn't be bothered stopping motorists and other road users breaking the red lights here, as the below accounts were done in eyeshot of 2 squad cars.

...

we are incapable of sharing the road in a responsible and courteous manner. It's me, me, me outta my way for a sizable minority of road users.

The abysmal standard of enforcement, when it does occur, is a major factor, imo. Change people's behaviour through enforcement, and their attitudes will follow in due course.

Unfortunately we need a police force willing and able to do the job. Two anecdotes from my own recent experience, in that regard.

I was driving on a 50 km/h urban road recently, and a Garda vehicle entered the roundabout ahead of me. The driver was travelling well in excess of the speed limit (judging by the rate at which he was pulling away from me) and went through two roundabouts without signalling. It will be argued that they are legally exempt, but there was absolutely no reason for them to be breaking the speed limit or not bothering their arse to signal.

Last Tuesday a Garda spokesperson was quoted in the local paper asking people to park responsibly around schools. On Friday I passed two local schools where an insane number of illegally parked vehicles were chaotically obstructing footpaths, junctions and bus stops. I spotted a Garda vehicle parked near a bus stop (behind a car which was parked on the path in front of the bus shelter). I walked towards the car to enquire of the Garda whether he was in the process of enforcing parking law, as per the Garda press announcement earlier in the week. Just then a girl in a school uniform hopped into the front seat, and he drove off. He was actually doing the school run in a Garda van. Welcome to the use of allegedly scarce police resources, Irish style.

Surveyor11

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Last Tuesday a Garda spokesperson was quoted in the local paper asking people to park responsibly around schools. On Friday I passed two local schools where an insane number of illegally parked vehicles were chaotically obstructing footpaths, junctions and bus stops. I spotted a Garda vehicle parked near a bus stop (behind a car which was parked on the path in front of the bus shelter). I walked towards the car to enquire of the Garda whether he was in the process of enforcing parking law, as per the Garda press announcement earlier in the week. Just then a girl in a school uniform hopped into the front seat, and he drove off. He was actually doing the school run in a Garda van. Welcome to the use of allegedly scarce police resources, Irish style.

I'm sort of with the Guards TBH on this one, it's just pure ignorance on the part of drivers. We have this in our local schools in Dublin 15 - the guards will show up with cones etc for the first few days of term, give out the odd warning / fine to drivers. When they're gone it's back to 'normal' - a losing battle. People would drive up the corridor to the classroom if it was wide enough, probably not beyond the reals on possibility. A combination of sheer lack of consideration and laziness.

What's very seldom demonstrated in this county is common courtesy and respect towards other people, as I said above it's me, me, me. The society of individuals.

uck51js9zml2yt

Surveyor11 wrote: »

But, but, but, they don't even pay road tax :eek: (there, I said it). Great idea though - I know this junction and there's easy access to the Canal from here.

motorists don't pay road tax either. we pay motor tax...bla. bla bla.:)

Spook_ie

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I'm sort of with the Guards TBH on this one, it's just pure ignorance on the part of drivers. We have this in our local schools in Dublin 15 - the guards will show up with cones etc for the first few days of term, give out the odd warning / fine to drivers. When they're gone it's back to 'normal' - a losing battle. People would drive up the corridor to the classroom if it was wide enough, probably not beyond the reals on possibility. A combination of sheer lack of consideration and laziness.

.

Don't see why not until schools sort out the problems of storing and transporting books. I never had to carry the equivalent of a 10 kilo+ sack of spuds to and from school But of course you could always get them to cycle to school with a cargo bike ( very chic and not likely to get them ostracised and bullied at all! )

Heavy school bags 'cause irreversible back deformities'

Posted by SchoolDays Newshound on 13/03/2012. Heavy school bags 'cause irreversible back deformities'Tags: Parenting Kids Health

Carrying overloaded bags is leading to a rise in the number of school children being seen with irreversible back deformities.

This is according to a new study by the charity BackCare, which explained how half of all youngsters suffer back pain by the age of 14, the Daily Mail reports.

Children who routinely carry backpacks weighing more than 15 per cent of their body weight risk long-term damage, health experts warn, with BackCare estimating many in fact carry 20 per cent.

"Many are carrying their bags on one shoulder or are increasingly carrying them on the crook of their elbow, so are placing a great strain on the spine," the organisation's spokesperson Sean McDougall remarked.

He warned the problem is a "healthcare timebomb" and said parents need to ensure their offspring only take what they need to school with them and always wear their backpack on two shoulders.

In 2010, Michael Lynch of the Irish Independent claimed children in Ireland carry an average school bag weighing 11.8 kg, which is well above the 3.7 kg recommended by a government working group.

Written by Donal WalshADNFCR-2163-ID-801316146-ADNFCR

Iwannahurl

Where has the OP gone?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't see why not until schools sort out the problems of storing and transporting books. I never had to carry the equivalent of a 10 kilo+ sack of spuds to and from school But of course you could always get them to cycle to school with a cargo bike ( very chic and not likely to get them ostracised and bullied at all! )

Heavy schoolbags may well be a universal problem (eg see this Dutch TV report) but is it really so bad in Ireland that it results in massive car use and car dependence? There are children in my neighbourhood travelling 800 metres to the same primary school with presumably the same weight of books, yet some opt for the car and some walk. The video above discusses the weight of schoolbags but in the background droves of children are seen cycling, whereas here they would be walking a few metres to a car parked up on the footpath.

My child is currently cycling to Senior Infants on a chunky bike weighing 10kg, passing out kids sitting in cars travelling the same or less distance. The primary obstacle is traffic.

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Where has the OP gone?





Heavy schoolbags may well be a universal problem (eg see this Dutch TV report) but is it really so bad in Ireland that it results in massive car use and car dependence? There are children in my neighbourhood travelling 800 metres to the same primary school with presumably the same weight of books, yet some opt for the car and some walk. The video above discusses the weight of schoolbags but in the background droves of children are seen cycling, whereas here they would be walking a few metres to a car parked up on the footpath.

My child is currently cycling to Senior Infants on a chunky bike weighing 10kg, passing out kids sitting in cars travelling the same or less distance. The primary obstacle is traffic.

Just out of interest decided to weigh their bags as they just staggered in...

Son 3rd year schoolbag 15 Kilos
Daughter 5th year schoolbag 10.5 Kilos

hopefully by the time your child gets to secondary they'll ALL be using laptops and EBooks

EDIT According to that backcare report the lad should be around 100 Kilos (16 stone in old money ) to be carting that bag around

Surveyor11

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The primary obstacle is traffic.

Same for my son, cycling since day 1 of Junior Infants. He's now in 1st class, I'm still amazed the parents that drive to the school and back home again - I would say some drive 300 - 400 yards. Fair enough if they need the car for onward journeys and this is the most efficient way, but we need to encourage more kids to walk and cycle to school.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just out of interest decided to weigh their bags as they just staggered in...

Son 3rd year schoolbag 15 Kilos
Daughter 5th year schoolbag 10.5 Kilos

hopefully by the time your child gets to secondary they'll ALL be using laptops and EBooks

EDIT According to that backcare report the lad should be around 100 Kilos (16 stone in old money ) to be carting that bag around

What's damaging young Dutch backs is too much time on computer games, reportedly: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/warning-of-spine-damage-to-young-from-computer-games-1.1491109

There's a simple solution to the problem of heavy schoolbags, imo. Bicycle panniers.