Cyclists breaking lights!!

Egginacup

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I am still in shock! I had an accident today and I am still shaking. I was at a junction this morning, my green filter light to turn right came on so I continued to proceed, I traveled about 15 feet and am almost into the junction where I wanted to travel to and a cyclist smashes into the side of my car doing considerable damage to my door. Thankfully the cyclist was ok too but I was in so much shock I could not think properly. The cyclist picked himself up, fixed his chain and continues on. I said to him that he broke a red light and that he will have to repair damage done to my car. He says accidents happen and that he doesnt have any money to fix it. He said he was late for work and continued on.

I am sick of cyclists everyday breaking lights...they seriously need to cop the f**k on and obey rules of the road.

Is it a crime to leave the scene of an accident if you are a cyclist the same way as it is if you are a motorist? Shouldn't you report this to the gardai and have them check the junction CCTV footage if their is any?
Guarantee you that if you were in the wrong and left the scene there would be hell to pay with the cyclist suing you for concussion and whiplash and all that.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

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?

No that would suggest a significant percentage of cyclists that will disregard the law and when questioned spout the same old crap of " But I'm only a cyclist" or " Do you know how much energy I have to expend from a standstill" or whatever the buzz phase of the moment is, instead of just accepting the fact that RED means STOP.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

No that would suggest a significant percentage of cyclists that will disregard the law and when questioned spout the same old crap of " But I'm only a cyclist" or " Do you know how much energy I have to expend from a standstill" or whatever the buzz phase of the moment is, instead of just accepting the fact that RED means STOP.

Yes, I agree and the law should be obeyed.

I was comparing the now almost 500-post thread that this has become (as well as all the other cyclist-howling threads that appear here and elsewhere from time-to-time) with a thread that highlights a much more dangerous activity being far less active.

Likewise the shrieking that follows the stories of cyclists using (illegally) the pavement is rarely (if ever?) matched by that which follows people parking on pavements (illegally) and forcing pedestrians into the road - or parking on double-yellows and obstructing sight-lines.

One might be given to think that some people just don't like cyclists, full stop. Rather than any concern about public safety driving their arguments, such as they are......

Weepsie

Egginacup wrote: »

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.

I walked up the quays from Ormond to the IFSC today and of the dozens of cyclists I saw coming from the south side, northside or coming up the quays I only saw one go ahead of the red light and he just stopped ahead of the lights. I saw 3 cars break a red light at the same time and one speeding up to beat a red (fast enough to possibly being over the limit). I also saw countless pedestrians jay walk. This was in 15 minutes.

There are drivers and cyclists who are doing this. It is certainly not the majority of either, and anyone claiming it is is either a liar or an idiot.

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

No succinct

not distinct which infers that they are totally different

Whatever man.

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Look up. That's my point, going right over your head.

Egginacup wrote: »

Is it a crime to leave the scene of an accident if you are a cyclist the same way as it is if you are a motorist? Shouldn't you report this to the gardai and have them check the junction CCTV footage if their is any?
Guarantee you that if you were in the wrong and left the scene there would be hell to pay with the cyclist suing you for concussion and whiplash and all that.

The offence only applies when someone is injured, afaik.

Weepsie wrote: »

I walked up the quays from Ormond to the IFSC today and of the dozens of cyclists I saw coming from the south side, northside or coming up the quays I only saw one go ahead of the red light and he just stopped ahead of the lights. I saw 3 cars break a red light at the same time and one speeding up to beat a red (fast enough to possibly being over the limit). I also saw countless pedestrians jay walk. This was in 15 minutes.

There are drivers and cyclists who are doing this. It is certainly not the majority of either, and anyone claiming it is is either a liar or an idiot.

It's not really a fair comparison. If you want to compare, compare all law-breaking. Compare the number of red-light breaking cyclists against the number of speed-limit breaking motorists.

RainyDay

I think all skateboarders should be licensed, taxed, helmeted, insured and wrapped in cotton wool - freeloaders;

Pinch Flat

RainyDay wrote: »

I think all skateboarders should be licensed, taxed, helmeted, insured and wrapped in cotton wool - freeloaders;

In fairness the cyclist they pass has hi-vis and a helmet (but pays no tax). Well done that man.

galwaycyclist

<delurks - against better judgement>

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

The way the Irish legislation is phrased is a bit messy

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

S.I. No. 273/1998: ROAD TRAFFIC (SIGNS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1998

"21. (1) Traffic sign number RRM 017 shall —S

(a) indicate the point beyond which traffic shall not proceed when stopping in compliance with a road regulation, and

(b) consist of a continuous white line, not less than 200 millimetres and not more than 250 millimetres wide.

(2) Subject to sub-article (3), where traffic sign RRM 017 is provided in the case of a one way roadway, it shall extend across the full width of the roadway and, in any other case it shall extend across the roadway from the left edge to the centre thereof.

(3) Where traffic sign number RRM 017 is provided at a junction which is approached by a cycle track or cycle tracks, a second such traffic sign may be provided in advance of, and parallel to, the traffic sign at the junction but shall not cross the cycle track or cycle tracks".

So the legislation assumes that to reach the bike box there must be a cycle lane and that cyclists use the cycle lane to get past the first stop line. Both assumptions are in my view unworkable.

skyhighflyer

When I'm on the bike, car drivers piss me off with their too-close overtaking and general blindness to 'lesser' vehicles. When I'm driving the car, cyclists piss me off by coming up on my inside when I'm turning left (in a turning lane) and breaking red lights. When I'm on foot, motorists and cyclists piss me off with inconsiderate footpath parking \ riding and breaking red lights at pedestrian crossings (crossing the north quays heading south over the Beckett bridge at least two cars and an infinite number of cyclists generally breeze through despite green lights for pedestrians).

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is here, other than some people are dicks and their dickishness will generally manifest itself no matter what their chosen mode of personal transport is.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I agree and the law should be obeyed.

I was comparing the now almost 500-post thread that this has become (as well as all the other cyclist-howling threads that appear here and elsewhere from time-to-time) with a thread that highlights a much more dangerous activity being far less active.

Likewise the shrieking that follows the stories of cyclists using (illegally) the pavement is rarely (if ever?) matched by that which follows people parking on pavements (illegally) and forcing pedestrians into the road - or parking on double-yellows and obstructing sight-lines.

One might be given to think that some people just don't like cyclists, full stop. Rather than any concern about public safety driving their arguments, such as they are......

No I would say that people don't come out of the woodwork to defend cars jumping red lights or cars parked on footpaths like they do to defend cyclists riding on footpaths or jumping redlights.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I would say that people don't come out of the woodwork to defend cars jumping red lights or cars parked on footpaths like they do to defend cyclists riding on footpaths or jumping redlights.

Really?

It seems to me people are only reacting to threads that are started about this topic by way of complaint - people who defend the practice tend to stay in the woodwork until someone else kicks off the circle jerk that these threads become.

Pity the initiators don't devote their 'considerable talents' to addressing actual problems, rather than minor irritations.

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

<delurks - against better judgement>




The way the Irish legislation is phrased is a bit messy

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

S.I. No. 273/1998: ROAD TRAFFIC (SIGNS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1998



So the legislation assumes that to reach the bike box there must be a cycle lane and that cyclists use the cycle lane to get past the first stop line. Both assumptions are in my view unworkable.

Thanks, that'll be why ASL etc. never shows up in searches which highlights the failing of them in a conversation about stopping at amber, if you can't stop before the 1st line but can before the 2nd should you be able to stop in the cyclebox?, now someones found an SI must email the RSA and see what they say

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Its a shame that they are not required like they are in many other countries, the test should also have a requirement to change a bulb or at least demonstrate the ability. The amount of drivers with broken lights in Dublin is shocking.

First Up

CramCycle wrote: »

Its a shame that they are not required like they are in many other countries, the test should also have a requirement to change a bulb or at least demonstrate the ability. The amount of drivers with broken lights in Dublin is shocking.

Couldn't agree more.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Its a shame that they are not required like they are in many other countries, the test should also have a requirement to change a bulb or at least demonstrate the ability. The amount of drivers with broken lights in Dublin is shocking.

First Up wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

I'd agree with you in principle but how would it work in reality? The fitting of a bulb in one car can be vastly different to another. I know how to change them in mine and driving nights do so on a regular basis but throw a different car at me and I'd probably be stumped

First Up

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd agree with you in principle but how would it work in reality? The fitting of a bulb in one car can be vastly different to another. I know how to change them in mine and driving nights do so on a regular basis but throw a different car at me and I'd probably be stumped

I was agreeing that the number of cars with defective lights is a disgrace. Whatever about being able to fit them, carrying spares should be mandatory and penalty points should be dished out in bucket loads.

Spook_ie

First Up wrote: »

I was agreeing that the number of cars with defective lights is a disgrace. Whatever about being able to fit them, carrying spares should be mandatory and penalty points should be dished out in bucket loads.

But as I said, in reality how would you work it, some vehicles/drivers require a garage appointment to fit bulbs. Do you allow a dispensation for those with an appointment or what?

First Up

Spook_ie wrote: »

But as I said, in reality how would you work it, some vehicles/drivers require a garage appointment to fit bulbs. Do you allow a dispensation for those with an appointment or what?

You give them a week to get it fixed.

Spook_ie

First Up wrote: »

You give them a week to get it fixed.

Might work, similar to the NYTaxiLimosuineCommission, an authorised officer gives you a ticket and if you don't have it fixed next time they stop you, they put you off the road, but a weeks too long

Pinch Flat

What about France? You'll be pulled over and told your light doesn't work. If you drive on without fixing it, automatic on the spot fine (if you don't have the cash, they'll helpfully drive you to the nearest cash point).

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What about France? You'll be pulled over and told your light doesn't work. If you drive on without fixing it, automatic on the spot fine (if you don't have the cash, they'll helpfully drive you to the nearest cash point).

I wonder if newer French designed cars like Peugot and Citroen are easier to change than most?

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

but a weeks too long

Agreed, if it was dangerous and illegal before they pulled you over, it doesn't make it any less dangerous once you receive a warning. If you can't change it, tough, pull over and collect in the morning and go straight to a garage or halfords. You'll know the next time.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

I wonder if newer French designed cars like Peugot and Citroen are easier to change than most?

ha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXCZ2v-nIF4

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Yes, we do indeed, mostly from cyclists.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, we do indeed, mostly from cyclists, themselves flagrant lawbreakers, referring only to motorists.

I am not, you could try a little less of the generalisation. For example, I don't think all motorists are law breakers no matter how many I see daily breaking basic road traffic law (running lights, not yielding, speeding etc.), I don't think all pedestrians are neanderthals with no concern for their own safety no matter how many hipsters I see walking out in front of traffic with oversized headphones and not looking left or right, I don't think all cyclists are prats despite the number who ride through green pedestrian lights.

There is a group in every population who are d*cks, if there weren't we wouldn't have so many pages of dribble on the matter every few weeks, but its about time some people had the cop on not to lump everyone in together.

Captain Flaps

SeanW wrote: »

mostly from cyclists, themselves flagrant lawbreakers

This statement right here is why we can't have a grownup conversation.

Tenzor07

Captain Flaps wrote: »

This statement right here is why we can't have a grownup conversation.

These sorts of "Bicyclist Bashing" threads always turn into a cesspit of diatribe which ultimately goes no where..

And always attracts the "Usual suspects" posting up there unqualified and one sided clap-trap and huge generalisations....(yes you know who you are!)



/thread

First Up

CramCycle wrote: »

Agreed, if it was dangerous and illegal before they pulled you over, it doesn't make it any less dangerous once you receive a warning. If you can't change it, tough, pull over and collect in the morning and go straight to a garage or halfords. You'll know the next time.

I'd be happy with a two pronged system whereby the initial offence got you a fine and pp's, plus a requirement to present to a cop shop within a week with the lights fixed. If you don't do that - a bigger fine and more pp's and that keeps happening until you are either driving a properly lit car, or you are off the road.

First Up

Tenzor07 wrote: »

These sorts of "Bicyclist Bashing" threads always turn into a cesspit of diatribe which ultimately goes no where..

And always attracts the "Usual suspects" posting up there unqualified and one sided clap-trap and huge generalisations....(yes you know who you are!)



/thread

No generalisation in that post at all.

ThisRegard

magicbastarder wrote: »

ha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXCZ2v-nIF4

That's 6 years old, hardly applicable to 'newer' cars.