Cyclists breaking lights!!

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well there's definitely a difference between driving standards here and driving standards in the UK, and I don't think it's all down to a lack of enforcement.

Yea true! :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Seeing as i'm not on trial here, I will leave it to your own observations to figure that one out Mr. Taxi Driver..

Didn't know anyone was on trial, I'm not the one calling people judge or anything like that, in fact I'm going out of my way to keep it balanced by citing where required SI's that apply specifically to Ireland, whereas you seem determined to drag it into a slagging match between taxi drivers and other road users.

Perhaps you need to remove the plank from your eye before trying to remove the splinter from mine

daUbiq

c0rk3r wrote: »

This isn't over OP ! THIS ISNT OVER!

We are all creatures of habit. I bet you anything that dude will cycle the same route tomorrow at the same time. If not tomorrow then on Monday or Tuesday etc. Spot him then follow him to work. Then straight to the guards to make a complaint about a hit and run. You can do this today... I think... If there was any cameras in the area that could help too. I wouldn't be letting this one go, well... not easily.

No one **** over c0rk3r! No one !

Go for it OP!

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yea true! :rolleyes:

So you managed to find a racist driver making a video. hmmm do much work in propaganda in your real life?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

ThisRegard wrote: »

Or in the case of a cyclist left injured to die on the road, when the driver is found, he's given the choice by the judge to return home and escape prison here despite a mass of road traffic and drugs offences, as has happened within the last 2 years.

Thats not the point.

Im talking when a car runs away and never to be found what does a cyclist do then ?

CramCycle

Barely There wrote: »

You know, your last few posts have really exposed your ignorance on a lot of matters - this one takes the biscuit though - well done.

IF there is only PT on the roads, road wear decreases tremendously, road repair and maintenance works cost plummet, the increased use of PT would then drive down the cost with increased income generated, creating a better and more reliable system.

I am not suggesting it should happen, it certainly shouldn't for various reasons, but he is technically correct, if roads were PT, work vehicles, cyclists and emergency vehicles only, costs would drop dramatically. I imagine with the increase in business for taxi drivers and small buses in the country they could also make themselves affordable on a regular basis.

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you managed to find a racist driver making a video. hmmm do much work in propaganda in your real life?

UK drivers are no better than here, and it appears they are racist in this case also...hmm..what sort of driver would we associate with this sort of behavior I wonder! :pac:

Barely There

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Explain?

Sorry - that would bore me - I'm sure you understand.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well Judge Spook, I have a life so I won't be going through looking for road traffic laws..

Tenzor07

Thanks for your useless posts so..

SeanW

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Thats not the point.

Im talking when a car runs away and never to be found what does a cyclist do then ?

Claim from the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland. All motorists pay extra on motoring insurance to pay for un-insured or hit-and-runs. All, including the majority who do neither.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well there's definitely a difference between driving standards here and driving standards in the UK, and I don't think it's all down to a lack of enforcement.

But you think it may be linked to something from a 100 years ago instead ?

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you think it may be linked to something from a 100 years ago instead ?

I don't know what it's linked to but having been taught to drive and passed my test in the UK there is most definitely a difference in attitude to road traffic law, perhaps there's a general disregard for the law, perhaps it's a mindset, perhaps it's a genome but there's definitely something, maybe some Trinity lad will do a study in future years and finds an answer

Jawgap

Meanwhile in Commuting and Transport

.....it's funny how ignoring a red light in a 1 tonne hunk of metal seems not to attract the same hysterical reaction as someone breaking a similar light on a 10kg bike does.....

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

Meanwhile in Commuting and Transport

.....it's funny how ignoring a red light in a 1 tonne hunk of metal seems not to attract the same hysterical reaction as someone breaking a similar light on a 10kg bike does.....

Probably because there's no one trying to really defend doing it, unlike when cyclists jump red lights and myriads of them appear to try and defend it or give reasons why they should be allowed to ignore them

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Meanwhile in Commuting and Transport

.....it's funny how ignoring a red light in a 1 tonne hunk of metal seems not to attract the same hysterical reaction as someone breaking a similar light on a 10kg bike does.....

the truth is somewhere close to 100% of both cyclists and motorists break red lights. I know I've done it when cycling and driving. Not something I am proud of, but it happens.

As usual there is a central category error in this debate, which is he failure to realise that traffic lights are not a safety measure. Anyone who disputes that should think for a second - the majority of junctions all over the country do not have traffic lights. Yet traffic yields and we survive.

Traffic lights exist to control traffic flow in congested environments. As such, a lot of cyclists quite rightly reason that in many cases they can be ignored if safe to proceed. For the record, I'd also like to see traffic light law changed so that cyclists can treat lights as a yield (already implemented in some places) and motorists can turn left on red when safe to do so. These are just sensible measures that reflect reality.

Lastly, there is a class of person who seems to believe that if they are on or in a larger or faster vehicle then anyone else needs to get out of the way. It is my belief that the same man who cycles straight through a congested pedestrian crossing gets into his BMW later in the day and cuts up commuting cyclists.

Those people are the problem.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

RainyDay wrote: »

You are a very, very unusual driver if you never break the speed limit in urban areas. And as for your bulbs, how 'immediately' is immediately. Do you check your bulbs before and after every journey? Do you interrupt journeys regularly to check your bulbs? Or is it just possible that you, like most (or every) other road user does break some traffic laws from time to time?

I never said I never go over the limit. I didn't mention anything about urban areas either. You are not reading my comments right.

Anyway, why are you chosing to pick on me? What's with all the pedantic questions? Just trying to poke holes in comments to reinforce your own. It's silly really.

Why would anybody stop on a journey to check their bulbs? That's also silly.

Your arguments are incredibly weak.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because there's no one trying to really defend doing it, unlike when cyclists jump red lights and myriads of them appear to try and defend it or give reasons why they should be allowed to ignore them

Probably because there's precedence for breaking red lights in other countries for cyclists (and motorists).

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't know what it's linked to but having been taught to drive and passed my test in the UK there is most definitely a difference in attitude to road traffic law, perhaps there's a general disregard for the law, perhaps it's a mindset, perhaps it's a genome but there's definitely something, maybe some Trinity lad will do a study in future years and finds an answer

Just a thought maybe it's something to do with the 60,000 or so drivers given an amnesty in the late 70's

Over 60,000 drivers were given a controversial “amnesty” in 1979 when they were granted a full driving licence without sitting a driving test due to a large backlog of applicants. “It is acknowledged that historically Ireland has had a lax attitude to learning to drive/taking a driving test and had a long term reliance on provisional licences,” said Mr Brett.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/l-drivers-to-be-urged-to-move-to-full-licences-132253.html

or the cockamamie regulation of driving unaccompanied on the 2nd provisional license ( or however that one worked )

Captain Flaps

preston johnny wrote: »

I wear a helmet for all my cycling, as do all my cycling friends, thankfully I have never come off the bike at speed.
I have witnessed on at least three occasions over the years when friends of mine have come off and the helmets have saved them from serious head injury, I am convinced of that (as they were)
Getting hit by a car from behind or the side at high speed is another matter.

I hit a pothole, buckled the front wheel, flew over the handlebars and smashed the helmet. Fractured skull, 2 weeks in hospital. I wasn't going that fast but I really don't like to think how much worse it would have been had I not been wearing the helmet.

Also people seem to constantly get hung up on initial impact. In the incident above I left a trail of foam as the side of my helmet scraped along the road, probably would have been a fair bit of hair and scalp there otherwise.

I wear a helmet 100% of the time I'm on the bike.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because there's no one trying to really defend doing it, unlike when cyclists jump red lights and myriads of them appear to try and defend it or give reasons why they should be allowed to ignore them

Where's the myriads defending it here?

Tenzor07

Jawgap wrote: »

Meanwhile in Commuting and Transport

.....it's funny how ignoring a red light in a 1 tonne hunk of metal seems not to attract the same hysterical reaction as someone breaking a similar light on a 10kg bike does.....

True! I don't see the outrage when people post videos like this online?

First Up

Tenzor07 wrote: »

True! I don't see the outrage when people post videos like this online?

Outrageous.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yea true! :rolleyes:

This guy is the cause of a lot of his problems. He's quite an aggressive driver and although he knows what the person in front is going to do, he puts himself in the position of a victim, although he contributed.

If you have a feeling that the car in front of you is going to do something stupid, account for it.

This asshat has a dump valve in is car for christ sake.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not really, it's a mind set of a lot of Irish road users ( not just taxi drivers ) probably something to do with a rebellious streak from years of oppression by the Brits

As to finding the SI, that's fine by me just don't complain about vehicles in ASLs if there's no legislation to back it up

I tried to read your posts and understand what you mean here. Are you saying it's ok to go into the red cycling boxes as there's no legislation to back it up? Apologies if I misunderstand your point.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

True! I don't see the outrage when people post videos like this online?

The only thing I see wrong here is a cyclist using the pedestrian crossing and then cycling on the footpath. Mother of god... *

* I am joking

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

And how does said cyclist get food delivered to the local supermarket?

He grows all his own food, silly.

Musa Thoughtless Swine wrote: »

I never said I never go over the limit. I didn't mention anything about urban areas either. You are not reading my comments right.

OK, so you do (like most drivers) break the speed limit. And yet most drivers seem to forget that they regularly break the speed limit, while they moan about cyclists breaking red lights. Just a tad hypocritical, no?

Musa Thoughtless Swine wrote: »

Why would anybody stop on a journey to check their bulbs? That's also silly.

Yes, it would be silly. But in the absence of such checks, it is inevitable that drivers will be breaking the law at some point, while they continue to moan about cyclists breaking red lights. Just a tad hypocritical, no?

Spook_ie

Musa Thoughtless Swine wrote: »

<snipped>

I tried to read your posts and understand what you mean here. Are you saying it's ok to go into the red cycling boxes as there's no legislation to back it up? Apologies if I misunderstand your point.



<snipped>

As of this moment I have been unable to find any legislation pertaining to Ireland and advanced Stop Lines at traffic lights.
There is legislation from the UK which actually makes sense but doesn't seem to appear in any legislation for here note legislation is the Statutory Instrument that the Rules of the road are derived from NOT the other way around

178

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

He grows all his own food, silly.

OK, so you do (like most drivers) break the speed limit. And yet most drivers seem to forget that they regularly break the speed limit, while they moan about cyclists breaking red lights. Just a tad hypocritical, no?


Yes, it would be silly. But in the absence of such checks, it is inevitable that drivers will be breaking the law at some point, while they continue to moan about cyclists breaking red lights. Just a tad hypocritical, no?

There is a succinct difference between breaking a law deliberately ( ignoring a red light ) and breaking a law because of a mechanical failure.

Of course if you drove my car it has warning lights to tell when a bulb has blown, well except for the reversing lights for some reason

BTW surely they'd only be technically hypocritical if they were comparing the same offences ie RLJing or speeding

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is a succinct difference between breaking a law deliberately ( ignoring a red light ) and breaking a law because of a mechanical failure.

Of course if you drove my car it has warning lights to tell when a bulb has blown, well except for the reversing lights for some reason

BTW surely they'd only be technically hypocritical if they were comparing the same offences ie RLJing or speeding

Distinct perhaps?

Yes, there is a difference, but we seem to often hear on these threads that the law is the law, and the law must be obeyed at all costs. I was pointing out that most drivers break the law most days, whether intentionally, or carelessly. It helps to add some context to discussions around law-breaking by cyclists.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because there's no one trying to really defend doing it, unlike when cyclists jump red lights and myriads of them appear to try and defend it or give reasons why they should be allowed to ignore them

So what your saying / suggesting is that it's not so much the risk that is the problem but the willingness of apparently significant numbers to defend / justify what most would acknowledge is an illegal act anyway.

That would seem to suggest a lack of concern about the risk presented because there is no risk?

Egginacup

sblythe wrote: »

Generalisation much. I cycle and I drive a car and obeying the Road traffic acts are in my best interests regardless of my mode of transport. Some cyclists are assholes as are some drivers, but nothing grinds my gears than people who use the above quote.

I was having a pint in the Arlington Hotel on Lord Edward Street one evening at about 6pm. I stepped outside for a cig and when the lights were red I counted only 2 cyclists out of about 20 who stopped.....and they only did so because the light had just turned red and pedestrians were stepping out to cross the street. Once the pedestrians passed these cyclists proceeded through the red light.
The cyclists were a complete mixture of people. Hardcore geared up guys on racers, women, men in suits, dudes on mountain bikes. They all just cruised through the red light.
Fair fcuks to you for obeying the rules of the road and it's wrong to generalise but from my observation you are definitely in the minority.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Distinct perhaps?

Yes, there is a difference, but we seem to often hear on these threads that the law is the law, and the law must be obeyed at all costs. I was pointing out that most drivers break the law most days, whether intentionally, or carelessly. It helps to add some context to discussions around law-breaking by cyclists.

No succinct

3. compressed into a small area, scope, or compass

not distinct which infers that they are totally different

Anyway, I believe there is a cop out in if you are traveling, such as heading to an automotive supplier or garage to purchase or effect said repair. I can't find a specific SI for it but precedence is set in that you may drive from an NCT center despite failing the NCT.

Therefore it would be sensible to have exclusions anyway otherwise we would be up to our tits in breakdown trucks collecting vehicles with faulty stop bulbs.


Now if spare bulb kits were mandatory to be carried that might have a different effect