An Garda Siochana tweets ....

tomasrojo

That makes no sense, I'm afraid.

I was looking at the risk imposed on others, and the risk imposed on the law-breaker. Neither is equivalent to shooting assault weapons at random really.

NuMarvel

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

I think that the term risk is being misused here. The risk is the likelihood of a hazard ocurring. The hazard being the crash, injury, death, etc. It strikes me that some of the debate here using the term above is going in circles due to the very use of the term incorrectly.

For me, the issue isn't the use of the word risk, it's the use of the words equal or identical.

A poster is claiming someone on a bike breaking a red light is equally as dangerous as someone doing the same in a car. But to date, that poster hasn't shown how that's the case and has even been shown why other people think it's not.

NuMarvel

GreeBo wrote: »

So a thing is only dangerous if you die now?

In fairness, death was the criteria you used when first asked to explain your claim that the two scenarios were equally as dangerous:

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, in both cases someone has an increased risk of dying.

GreeBo

NuMarvel wrote: »

For me, the issue isn't the use of the word risk, it's the use of the words equal or identical.

A poster is claiming someone on a bike breaking a red light is equally as dangerous as someone doing the same in a car. But to date, that poster hasn't shown how that's the case and has even been shown why other people think it's not.

I've shown multiple times how the risk to the cyclist is equal regardless of who broke the light, some posters are only interested in the danger caused to others. Hence my point about the AK47, using the same logic its not as dangerous for me shooting the gun randomly versus someone else shooting it randomly.
Yet in both cases a bucket load of people are going to get shot.

NuMarvel wrote: »

In fairness, death was the criteria you used when first asked to explain your claim that the two scenarios were equally as dangerous:

I specifically said "increased risk of dying" which they do.
If a bike and a car collide due to one of them breaking a red light then there is a risk of death, irrespective of who actually broke the light.

drkpower

greenspurs wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/948888843436077057

Read it and weep ...... This from the upholders of law in Ireland...
What chance do we have , when they post such derisive and stupid stuff, designed to drive the wedge deeper between people in cars, and people on bikes !

I dont read it as being designed to drive a wedge between anyone.

I read it as being both tongue in cheek and importantly, rhetorical. It is juxtaposing two stoopid things, and (not really) asking people to choose. Kind of like 'farting, or picking your nose in public; which is worse?; that question isnt designed to trigger a debate as to whether farters or nosepickers are more reprehensible. Indeed, anyone who would respond to that question by debating the issue are a bit weird/have missed the point.

1bryan

GreeBo wrote: »

I've shown multiple times how the risk to the cyclist is equal regardless of who broke the light, some posters are only interested in the danger caused to others. Hence my point about the AK47, using the same logic its not as dangerous for me shooting the gun randomly versus someone else shooting it randomly.
Yet in both cases a bucket load of people are going to get shot.



I specifically said "increased risk of dying" which they do.
If a bike and a car collide due to one of them breaking a red light then there is a risk of death, irrespective of who actually broke the light.

ha ha, hilarious. For a while there you had me thinking you were serious.

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

I dont read it as being designed to drive a wedge between anyone.

I read it as being both tongue in cheek and importantly, rhetorical. It is juxtaposing two stoopid things, and (not really) asking people to choose. Kind of like 'farting, or picking your nose in public; which is worse?; that question isnt designed to trigger a debate as to whether farters or nosepickers are more reprehensible. Indeed, anyone who would respond to that question by debating the issue are a bit weird/have missed the point.

In and of itself its harmless enough, coming from the source it did its very poorly thought out and implies a bias on their thinking.

NuMarvel

GreeBo wrote: »

I've shown multiple times how the risk to the cyclist is equal regardless of who broke the light

You haven't shown how the risk is equal to all road users. To use your own words, "If you are only quantifying risk by looking at risk to the person who breaks the light you are completely misrepresenting the actual risk.".

How are things equally dangerous to ALL road users, regardless of whether a bike or a car break a red light?

GreeBo wrote: »

I specifically said "increased risk of dying" which they do.

Never said otherwise. Just pointing out that dying was the sole criteria you used, so it's fair if it's the sole criteria others use too.

drkpower

GreeBo wrote: »

In and of itself its harmless enough, coming from the source it did its very poorly thought out and implies a bias on their thinking.

i dont see the bias at all - i would have thought its obvious - they are saying both things are stupid - its the people who vote/debate it who are showing bias by taking it seriously - i suspect AGS are facepalming all day at the reaction

GreeBo

NuMarvel wrote: »

You haven't shown how the risk is equal to all road users. To use your own words, "If you are only quantifying risk by looking at risk to the person who breaks the light you are completely misrepresenting the actual risk.".

How are things equally dangerous to ALL road users, regardless of whether a bike or a car break a red light?

No I said you need to *look* at the outcome for all road users.
If one cyclists dies in both cases then its the same result, regardless of who was at fault.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Never said otherwise. Just pointing out that dying was the sole criteria you used, so it's fair if it's the sole criteria others use too.

*RISK* of dying, not dying.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

In and of itself its harmless enough, coming from the source it did its very poorly thought out and implies a bias on their thinking.

It also follows on from this, as mentioned already:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949020565985267712

No cycling groups have asked for leniency for light breakers, let alone maximum leniency.

It's a dim misunderstanding of the issue as a false dichotomy, or else, far more plausibly, a cynical attempt to make it a false dichotomy.

Breaking red lights has NOTHING to do with people parking motorised vehicles on dedicated cycling infrastructure. They're supposed to clamp down on both.

tomasrojo

drkpower wrote: »

i dont see the bias at all - i would have thought its obvious - they are saying both things are stupid

But which one is stupider?

There's only one way to find out!

HATE SWARM!

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

It also follows on from this, as mentioned already:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949020565985267712

No cycling groups have asked for leniency for light breakers, let alone maximum leniency.

It's a dim misunderstanding of the issue as a false dichotomy, or else, far more plausibly, a cynical attempt to make it a false dichotomy.

Breaking red lights has NOTHING to do with people parking motorised vehicles on dedicated cycling infrastructure. They're supposed to clamp down on both.

Exactly, thats why I mean displaying bias.

terrydel

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Less of the Garda bashing please.

Be nice.

Noted, they just boil my blood something awful.

NuMarvel

GreeBo wrote: »

If one cyclists dies in both cases then its the same result, regardless of who was at fault.

None of this backs up what you're saying. It doesn't come close to it. All you're saying here is that events with the same outcome, have the same outcome. That doesn't mean all events of this nature are equally dangerous.

GreeBo

NuMarvel wrote: »

None of this backs up what you're saying. It doesn't come close to it. All you're saying here is that events with the same outcome, have the same outcome. That doesn't mean all events of this nature are equally dangerous.

No, I'm saying that if someone breaks a red light then someone is at risk of getting seriously injured or killed.
Sometimes the person at risk is the person who broke the law, sometimes not.

That doesn't change the fact that someone is at risk when red lights are broken.

As an aside, what is the point in arguing that its less dangerous when a cyclist breaks a red light?
Whats your end game here? Allowing cyclists to break red lights?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

As an aside, what is the point in arguing that its less dangerous when a cyclist breaks a red light?
Whats your end game here? Allowing cyclists to break red lights?

The point is that facts matter. Evidence and data matters. All the evidence suggests that cyclists breaking red lights isn't particularly dangerous. I am not aware of any research that suggests it is a leading cause of death or serious injury on the roads, so why are AGS so exercised about it?

With regard to the wider picture, at this stage I have heard so many stories about guards lecturing cyclists without cause, often when the same cyclists have just been on the sharp end of some idiotic driving, that you'd have to say there is an institutionalised culture problem with the traffic corps when it comes to cycling.

Someone in authority needs to get onto the commissioner fast and turn things around.

RGS

"With regard to the wider picture, at this stage I have heard so many stories about guards lecturing cyclists without cause, often when the same cyclists have just been on the sharp end of some idiotic driving, that you'd have to say there is an institutionalised culture problem with the traffic corps when it comes to cycling."

Happened to me recently when I pointed out to a garda that he drove past a car which was double parked, blocking the cycling lane and partially blocking the bus lane outside the shops opposite Clontarf Golf Club.

I was lectured on the lack of resources and how he would love to set up a check point to catch law breaking cyclists.
Nothing about the dangerous parked motor vehicle or other motorist breaking the law.

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan-teen-bicyclist-fatally-struck-running-red-light-article-1.3287298

But I guess running red lights in a different country somehow changes the risk.

Yeah, a one-off incident in a country of 250 million population with different traffic culture and rules is a different risk to an Irish traffic issue, in fairness. By your logic, Irish Gardai should have metal detectors at every Irish school because of the prevalence of school shootings in the US.

tomasrojo wrote: »

But red light jumping makes life unpleasant for everyone, so the Gardaí should stop it where they see it, regardless of how "dangerous" it is.

Dropping cigarette butts makes like unpleasant for everyone, so should Gardai stop it where they see it, regardless of how dangerous it is?

Gardai have to prioritise their resources and focus. Every Garda hour spent dealing with cyclists breaking red lights is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

GreeBo wrote: »

Whats your end game here? Allowing cyclists to break red lights?

My end game is that Gardai reduce the death toll on our roads by focusing their resources on the drivers that kill and maim people on our roads.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My end game is that Gardai reduce the death toll on our roads by focusing their resources on the drivers that kill and maim people on our roads.

Hear hear

GreeBo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, a one-off incident in a country of 250 million population with different traffic culture and rules is a different risk to an Irish traffic issue, in fairness. By your logic, Irish Gardai should have metal detectors at every Irish school because of the prevalence of school shootings in the US.



Dropping cigarette butts makes like unpleasant for everyone, so should Gardai stop it where they see it, regardless of how dangerous it is?

Gardai have to prioritise their resources and focus. Every Garda hour spent dealing with cyclists breaking red lights is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

I'll ignore the nonsensical strawmanning.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My end game is that Gardai reduce the death toll on our roads by focusing their resources on the drivers that kill and maim people on our roads.

So to clarify, you dont want cyclists to stop breaking red lights.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that facts matter. Evidence and data matters. All the evidence suggests that cyclists breaking red lights isn't particularly dangerous.

You dont think breaking red lights is dangerous for the cyclist?

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/Traffic_Corps/status/949305682959970306

NuMarvel

GreeBo wrote: »

No, I'm saying that if someone breaks a red light then someone is at risk of getting seriously injured or killed.
Sometimes the person at risk is the person who broke the law, sometimes not.

That doesn't change the fact that someone is at risk when red lights are broken.

I've already addressed this. In summary, the issue is that you're claiming the risks and dangers are equal. The most you've shown is that both scenarios have risk and dangers. That's not the same thing by a long shot.

GreeBo wrote: »

As an aside, what is the point in arguing that its less dangerous when a cyclist breaks a red light?
Whats your end game here? Allowing cyclists to break red lights?

I'm discussing it because I can't see how a bike breaking a red light is as equally dangerous as a car breaking a red light and I'm hoping you can explain it in more detail. Hours and numerous posts later, I'm none the wiser.

Plus, what Orinoco said.

ED E

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Traffic_Corps/status/949305682959970306

Worth noting thats a spoof account.

NuMarvel

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Traffic_Corps/status/949305682959970306

Hah, that nearly had me!

Eamonnator

ED E wrote: »

Worth noting thats a spoof account.

It's still funny

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

You dont think breaking red lights is dangerous for the cyclist?

Not particularly, no.

Given that (as we all agree) cyclists in their thousands are breaking red lights all day long in Dublin, it seems odd that I can't recall a single reported incident in which death or serious injury was caused to ANYONE because a cyclist jumped a light.

Sure, there's the occasional idiot as shown in your video, but anecdotes don't prove anything. There seems to be zero reporting or research on the dangers caused by cyclists breaking red lights.

The truth, as you know, I know, and anyone who thinks about it for a second knows, is that most red light jumping by cyclists is done when they treat the junction as a yield and proceed when it is safe. This is behaviour normalised in many other cities and with no apparent safety impact. You can claim it must be incredibly dangerous because it's against the law, but that doesn't make it true.

yes, it is ignorant in the extreme for cyclists to go through pedestrian crossings on red when pedestrians are crossing or want to cross. I could not agree more. Ignorant does not equal dangerous however. Again, how many pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in Ireland in the last 10 years?

07Lapierre

Its been picked up by Cycling weekly UK:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/irish-police-criticised-posting-deliberately-divisive-twitter-poll-cyclists-364565?utm_content=manual&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=cyclingweekly

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Not particularly, no.

Given that (as we all agree) cyclists in their thousands are breaking red lights all day long in Dublin, it seems odd that I can't recall a single reported incident in which death or serious injury was caused to ANYONE because a cyclist jumped a light.

Sure, there's the occasional idiot as shown in your video, but anecdotes don't prove anything. There seems to be zero reporting or research on the dangers caused by cyclists breaking red lights.

Was the deliveroo guy not seriously injured?

What are the reported stats for *any* serious injuries to cyclists that dont result in death? The point is often well made on this forum (albeit when it suits the argument) that the stats are typically not held for incidents that dont involve a death.

Deleted User wrote: »

The truth, as you know, I know, and anyone who thinks about it for a second knows, is that most red light jumping by cyclists is done when they treat the junction as a yield and proceed when it is safe. This is behaviour normalised in many other cities and with no apparent safety impact. You can claim it must be incredibly dangerous because it's against the law, but that doesn't make it true.

I dont think I claimed anywhere that it was dangerous just because it was illegal?

Deleted User wrote: »

yes, it is ignorant in the extreme for cyclists to go through pedestrian crossings on red when pedestrians are crossing or want to cross. I could not agree more. Ignorant does not equal dangerous however. Again, how many pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in Ireland in the last 10 years?

How many pedestrians are hit by cyclists in the last 10 years.
Again the fixation on deaths, when it suits the agenda.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

Whats your end game here? Allowing cyclists to break red lights?

When it comes to turning left, yes.
If a pedestrian crossing is clear? yes, why not?

In fact I see no reason why motorists couldn't turn left on red "if safe to do so". In the USA, cars can turn right when lights are red, but Pedestrians still have right-of-way and that shouldn't change.