Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

we ordered a firehouse pizza after rave reviews from a friend. it was barely middling.

I'd agree. Not far off a Mizzoni.

Da Mimmo in Fairview; Independent, or the Mick Wallace place by Croke Park.

In separate, very sad pizza related news - Steps of Rome on Chatham Street has shut down.

I believe this is called a de-rail; so I will shut up.

Tombo2001

A conclusion I've come to from this and other conversations

- Motorist believe a lot of cyclists are 'Kamikaze', crazy etc......because they do things that if a Motorist did it, it would be Kamikaze.

Regularly breaking red lights - if motorists do it its highly dangerous.

So motorists project the same onto cyclists - if cyclists break red lights, its highly dangerous.

But its not the same thing, and they are not equivalent - if the discussion is about road safety.

A motorist breaking a red light to my mind is more equivalent to a cyclist cycling at high speed on pavement. Which some, but not many do. Just as some, but not many motorists break red lights.

RayCun

While the conclusion I come to is that cyclists see going through red lights the same way motorists see going through was-amber-a-minute-ago lights

• It's almost certainly safe
• Everyone else is doing it
• It saves me lots of time
• It might be dangerous if I don't!

Annie get your Run

Tombo2001 wrote: »

A conclusion I've come to from this and other conversations

- Motorist believe a lot of cyclists are 'Kamikaze', crazy etc......because they do things that if a Motorist did it, it would be Kamikaze.

Regularly breaking red lights - if motorists do it its highly dangerous.

So motorists project the same onto cyclists - if cyclists break red lights, its highly dangerous.

But its not the same thing, and they are not equivalent - if the discussion is about road safety.

A motorist breaking a red light to my mind is more equivalent to a cyclist cycling at high speed on pavement. Which some, but not many do. Just as some, but not many motorists break red lights.

But shouldn't the discussion be about the fact that both are breaking the law? You can argue the law is flawed etc - and if you believe that then you should campaign on it - in the meantime it's an offense, safe or not. That's enough of a reason for many people but not everyone it seems.

Tombo2001

Annie get your Run wrote: »

But shouldn't the discussion be about the fact that both are breaking the law? You can argue the law is flawed etc - and if you believe that then you should campaign on it - in the meantime it's an offense, safe or not. That's enough of a reason for many people but not everyone it seems.

You can have both discussions.

It doesn't have to be about one or the other.

But a discussion about safety is not the same as a discussion about the law.

Tombo2001

RayCun wrote: »

While the conclusion I come to is that cyclists see going through red lights the same way motorists see going through was-amber-a-minute-ago lights

• It's almost certainly safe
• Everyone else is doing it
• It saves me lots of time
• It might be dangerous if I don't!

I would disagree in that for me a car breaking an orange light is far less safe than a cyclist breaking a red.

That's based on personal experience, my own opinion so obviously subjective; and ultimately depends on circumstance.

Pinch Flat

Its seems like the red light breaking of cyclists touches a nerve with motorists - its frequently brought into these discussions. Yet the red / late amber breaking of cars is somehow glanced over.

One way to close off this is to bring in a law that all traffic could break a red turning left, provided the way is clear. This would assist all forms of traffic that are needlessly stopped when turning left and the way is clear.

mr spuckler

don't they allow that in the states? although for them it's a right turn...

PaulieC

Yes and it works wonderfully well there in my experience.

magicbastarder

does the fact that walking and cycling seem less popular in the states make right turn on red less risky? in that there may be less chance of a pedestrian crossing in the way?

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

does the fact that walking and cycling seem less popular in the states make right turn on red less risky? in that there may be less chance of a pedestrian crossing in the way?

I can only comment on what I've seen in Boston & NY and it seems to work very well. plenty of pedestrians in both of those city centres! ped lights are often green also but the law allows the car to proceed across the crossing once it's clear.

Pinch Flat

Some US states and the Netherlands as well, although I believe the rule in the Netherlands may be only specific to cyclists (open to correction)

Tenzor07

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I would disagree in that for me a car breaking an orange light is far less safe than a cyclist breaking a red..

Don't you know that in Ireland the Amber light means FLOOR IT! :eek:

CramCycle

RayCun wrote: »

UK accidents happen mostly in cities, where women are a relatively high proportion of cyclists, and Canadian accidents happen mostly outside cities, and men are a much higher proportion of cyclists there?

Possibly although I would presume alot of the cycling referenced in Canada was in cities and build up areas as well.

CramCycle

The problem with the left turn on red here is quite simply people. Quite a number of road users don't give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings. They will turn on red regardless of if a pedestrian is there or not. They will stop if they have too but they will edge in close, skirt by them etc.

Something about Irish roads were car is king that many road users not only forget the basic rules of road usage, but all knowledge of human decency gets flung out the window like a teenager getting sick in a taxi but not wanting to pay the soiling charge.

V-man

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Its seems like the red light breaking of cyclists touches a nerve with motorists - its frequently brought into these discussions. Yet the red / late amber breaking of cars is somehow glanced over.

Behind the wheel primitive instincts as territorial instinct and competition take over. A false sense of power and control. If somehow that power is taken away it feels like losing control.
Someone driving slow in front of you, a traffic jam, a cyclist breaking the red light all causes immediate anger. An anger which incidentally is contagious among drivers, which exacerbates the situation.
"Funny thing is we can switch effortlessly roles many times a day,"
"We can make us tremendously angry in a car about the behavior of a cyclist, while half an hour later we do the same on our bicycle and are furious about the motorist”

(Roughly translated from a Traffic psychologist on a Belgian website)

HivemindXX

CramCycle wrote: »

The problem with the left turn on red here is quite simply people. Quite a number of road users don't give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings. They will turn on red regardless of if a pedestrian is there or not. They will stop if they have too but they will edge in close, skirt by them etc.

New York is not a good example since this is an exception to the general rule in the US. You can only turn right on red when specifically allowed, not by default as in most locations. Lots of pedestrians get killed crossing on green by cars too, I'm sure the motorists are sorry that they didn't see them.

Don't forget that according to some of our TDs and an increasing number of people pedestrians are practically invisible unless they are wearing high-viz at all times so I'm not sure how this system where can go through a red so long as you don't see a pedestrian crossing will work out in reality.

AndrewJRenko

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense.

We've had this discussion before, but - you're dreaming. If every Garda was to act on every occurance of law-breaking that they see, they'd never get more than 10 meters from the station. 82% of motorists break the speed limit. 88% of those breaking red lights are motorists (http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/)

And the vast majority of these have no fear of enforcement, for obvious reasons.

Roadhawk wrote: »

The drivers you mention not getting caught while breaking a speed limit is different.

I am in favour of the laws being enforced. The gardai show discretion when doing a couple of km over the limit but thats it.

'Different' you say? That wouldn't be just an excuse to get motorists off the hook, would it?

Alanstrainor

Just had another lethal one. Long narrow stretch, in Dublin. Driver beeps from afar, then again on approach and then beeps as he buzzes me at 60km/h+. I'd say there was a cm in it. Fucker actively tried to run me down. All on camera(s) front and rear including audio of the beeps.

I really don't want to get a reputation with my local station for being a serial reporter of these incidents... My local garda is going to be giving me a call about a previous incident around a month ago in the next few days. I'll mention it to him and see what he says.

CramCycle

Red light cameras with ANPR, no announcement, just install them randomly around the major cities. The first morning alone would pay for the installation and the next 28 days would pay for someone to work through the ton of data for the next year or two.

Then you can also work on the ridiculous Irish road traffic management of giving huge breaks between reds which are there solely to facilitate red light running.

Then you can start working on discrete ANPR on bus lanes, and free up traffic corp to look at close passes and poor cycling.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

Red light cameras with ANPR, no announcement, just install them randomly around the major cities.

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

And you are 100% right but IMO, this will bring high level compliance in about two months without full rollout as no one will know which lights have ANPR and which don't when the media storm of a few thousand people getting fines hits the news.

A warning before hand will just have people messing about trying to figure out where they can and can't do it, people setting up websites with known spots, people posting up where they have seen such works carried out. The benefits will be slower and not as strongly felt.

Look at the speed vans, they would have you believe Ireland has the lowest percentage of speeders in Europe.

RacoonQueen

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

Because catching people at it is what should stop it(thought that hasn't necessarily worked with phone usage). People do it because there are no repercussions. If fines start being dished out, court appearances for not paying fine etc...that will help stop it.

Chiparus

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Just had another lethal one. Long narrow stretch, in Dublin. Driver beeps from afar, then again on approach and then beeps as he buzzes me at 60km/h+. I'd say there was a cm in it. Fucker actively tried to run me down. All on camera(s) front and rear including audio of the beeps.

I really don't want to get a reputation with my local station for being a serial reporter of these incidents... My local garda is going to be giving me a call about a previous incident around a month ago in the next few days. I'll mention it to him and see what he says.

Ask for the drivers insurance details as you are considering putting in a claim with the PIAB.

Unknown Soldier

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

By catching people doing it and taking action, it prevents it.

Why there are no HD cameras on Bus lanes is beyond me. Change the legislation to the owner gets fined/points. job done!

magicbastarder

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Because catching people at it is what should stop it

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

Alas no, warning signs I see put people off, they know where the cameras are, they speed up until a few 100m before and then slam on, then speed up again.

check_six

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In separate, very sad pizza related news - Steps of Rome on Chatham Street has shut down.

I believe this is called a de-rail; so I will shut up.

WHAATTTT? The Steps of Rome gone?

But, but, but,....
...enough of this cycling malarkey. We need to mount a campaign to resurrect the Steps of Rome!

This is like snecking 2016 bumping off all the celebrities. I won't stand for it!

Who's with me?

Hrududu

God this thread has gone to ****. Are there not other threads about red light jumping people can argue in?

Unknown Soldier

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

So speed until you see the sign? I'm not sure that's how it's meant to work.

Some people don't do "bad" things because it's how they live their lives. Example being giving other people space while cycling, or understanding what Bus lanes are for, buses & quick public transport etc

The second would be those who "don't break the law", because it's a law. They would if they could though! If not using a Bus lane was a polite request they'd be in it night and day.

Then the third is the law breaker, who only responds to punishment, fines etc.

A sign about speeding is only useful if there is a camera somewhere dishing out punishment.

Sadly were not a Nation that is 100% behind our ideals, much like most Nations.