Cyclists, The Law & What can be done to improve cyclist safety

Stark

godtabh wrote: »

So I came across this evening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvxKFPx-2e4

Lights are clearly red for a long time. Cyclists, not knowing the Garda car is right beside them, pull off breaking the red lights.

What do the Gardai do? Nothing.

With all the bad press last week from VeloCity about how dangerous it is to cycle to Dublin

1. How can cyclists be so stupid?
2. Enforcement is half the issue. Why no enforcement?

If (some) cyclist couldn't be arsed following the law and (some) Gardai couldn't be arsed enforcing something so obviously breaking the law what is the solution to the problem of road safety?

Since this is all about your concern for those cyclists' safety, I think it's only fair that you post the carnage aftermath from them breaking the lights.

beauf

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. Put it this way. Can we agree though that you're far more likely to see Gardai enforcing speed or drink driving than you are to see them tackling errant cyclists or pedestrians?

I think both are rare enough that its not a deterrent. That one is more than the other is not really significant.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-2-000-on-the-spot-fines-for-cyclists-in-three-years-1.3580196

75% for red lights.

This is 2 fines per day for cyclists. For the entire country.

Duckjob

Stark wrote: »

Since this is all about your concern for those cyclists' safety, I think it's only fair that you post the carnage aftermath from them breaking the lights.

TBF you could apply that logic to any reckless and dangerous act by a car/bus/truck driver. Just because an action doesn't cause an incident one time doesn't mean it was ok.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

i mentioned here about pointing out a truck with bald tyres to a garda, in full knowledge that if i'd pointed out it was parked half on a footpath, he'd have disregarded it.
parking on footpaths is so endemic in this city that people feel entitled to do so, and would moan incredibly if they were prevented from doing so. but it's illegal.

Not to drag it into a resourcing issue but I can pretty much guarantee that Garda wouldn’t have been in possession of a thread depth gauge. The average patrol car wouldn’t have one ,or a speed gun or a tintman for window tints or decibelmeter for loud exhausts or a stinger device for stopping cars or the many other things that other well resourced police cars have. American police cars had onboard computers in the 80s. The 21st century Garda probably had a pen and notebook.

North of 32

07Lapierre wrote: »

Running red lights is illegal for all road users. It's that simple.

What is a road user?

droidus

Duckjob wrote: »

TBF you could apply that logic to any reckless and dangerous act by a car/bus/truck driver. Just because an action doesn't cause an incident one time doesn't mean it was ok.

Yes, but one is objectively far more likely to kill or injure than another.

Im honestly baffled by the endless noise about minor cyclist misbehaviour. Its just not that big a problem in comparison to... ...just about everything else bad that happens on the roads and in society.

I blame the broken windows theory.

07Lapierre

North of 32 wrote: »

What is a road user?

mistermaster

beauf wrote: »

I think both are rare enough that its not a deterrent. That one is more than the other is not really significant.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-2-000-on-the-spot-fines-for-cyclists-in-three-years-1.3580196

75% for red lights.

This is 2 fines per day for cyclists. For the entire country.

I see that Irish Times articles mentions having advance green lights for cyclists, same as somebody else here mentioned a page or two back. I’ve a different take on that.

Let me start this one by saying I’m in a logistics job where I often have to think “what if…?” as we look for new solutions to long-running problems. Sometimes people like the idea. Sometimes they don’t. I just put them out there so people can think about them anyway. And I often put them out there before I’ve even fully thought them through myself.

So, here’s one of them – say we agree with the cyclist-specific lights at every junction, but what if we have them green for cyclists AFTER the motorised traffic has already moved off, instead of before?

i.e. green light for motorists to move off first, then that light goes back to red, then green for cyclists to go that way, before it’s back to red for cyclists too and traffic is allowed move in another direction.

If cyclists move off first, then unless there’s gridlock, it usually leads to the motorised traffic passing them before the next lights, then all stopping again, cyclists moving off first again, and the same traffic passing the same cyclists again.

But the other way round, cyclists still have a clear road ahead of them as they start of to move off, but the benefit of no immediate prospect of traffic coming from behind.

Personally I don’t really like it when I’m in a bunch of cyclists moving off together ahead of other traffic, because I’m conscious of the chance of some impatient driver or drivers coming from behind, trying to get round the whole bunch. If there’s only a small number of cars at the lights, I’ll often let them off first, just so I don’t have to think about them coming from behind. Some here might say I’m too meek but I’m in my 40s now and have only recently started cycling in Dublin again (after a gap of more than 20 years!) after work decided I need to be in the Dublin office two days per week. I was more gung ho back in my student days here!

But anyway – it’s just an idea. And I’m first to admit that some of my ideas are not great ones. Like I said up top, I just throw them out there to see what other people might think.

07Lapierre

mistermaster wrote: »

I see that Irish Times articles mentions having advance green lights for cyclists, same as somebody else here mentioned a page or two back. I’ve a different take on that.

Let me start this one by saying I’m in a logistics job where I often have to think “what if…?” as we look for new solutions to long-running problems. Sometimes people like the idea. Sometimes they don’t. I just put them out there so people can think about them anyway. And I often put them out there before I’ve even fully thought them through myself.

So, here’s one of them – say we agree with the cyclist-specific lights at every junction, but what if we have them green for cyclists AFTER the motorised traffic has already moved off, instead of before?

i.e. green light for motorists to move off first, then that light goes back to red, then green for cyclists to go that way, before it’s back to red for cyclists too and traffic is allowed move in another direction.

If cyclists move off first, then unless there’s gridlock, it usually leads to the motorised traffic passing them before the next lights, then all stopping again, cyclists moving off first again, and the same traffic passing the same cyclists again.

But the other way round, cyclists still have a clear road ahead of them as they start of to move off, but the benefit of no immediate prospect of traffic coming from behind.

Personally I don’t really like it when I’m in a bunch of cyclists moving off together ahead of other traffic, because I’m conscious of the chance of some impatient driver or drivers coming from behind, trying to get round the whole bunch. If there’s only a small number of cars at the lights, I’ll often let them off first, just so I don’t have to think about them coming from behind. Some here might say I’m too meek but I’m in my 40s now and have only recently started cycling in Dublin again (after a gap of more than 20 years!) after work decided I need to be in the Dublin office two days per week. I was more gung ho back in my student days here!

But anyway – it’s just an idea. And I’m first to admit that some of my ideas are not great ones. Like I said up top, I just throw them out there to see what other people might think.

Here's a few ideas that have been tried and tested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYGL80qx71g

Duckjob

droidus wrote: »

Yes, but one is objectively far more likely to kill or injure than another.

Im honestly baffled by the endless noise about minor cyclist misbehaviour. Its just not that big a problem in comparison to... ...just about everything else bad that happens on the roads and in society.

I blame the broken windows theory.

I do agree with you about the comparative danger. I was pointing out that showing the lack of incident following one such action doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Apart from any actual safety considerations, I do think cyclists going through reds is bad for optics. Knowing that there are plenty motorists sitting in cars with an irrational hatred of anyone who happens to be sitting on a bike, I think those sort of actions just fan the flames.

Also as beauf posted, there's studies to suggest a blatent lack of enforcement (garda car right beside them) of minor transgressions influences people's behavior for the worse. If thats the case, then I would suggest its better on balance for cyclists doing it to be nabbed, so that all road users get a sense of greater enforcement and adjust their behavior for the better.

droidus

Duckjob wrote: »

I do agree with you about the comparative danger. I was pointing out that showing the lack of incident following one such action doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Apart from any actual safety considerations, I do think cyclists going through reds is bad for optics. Knowing that there are plenty motorists sitting in cars with an irrational hatred of anyone who happens to be sitting on a bike, I think those sort of actions just fan the flames.

Also as beauf posted, there's studies to suggest a blatent lack of enforcement (garda car right beside them) of minor transgressions influences people's behavior for the worse. If thats the case, then I would suggest its better on balance for cyclists doing it to be nabbed, so that all road users get a sense of greater enforcement and adjust their behavior for the better.

Well that's the broken window theory, I dont buy it myself.

Ive come round to the idea that the optics dont really matter. The problem is systemic and its to do with the entitlement and psychology of drivers and motoring. If every cyclist obeyed every law all the time some other reason to demonise them would be found.

North of 32

07Lapierre wrote: »

I don't mean to quibble. I am just wondering what you categorise as a road user.

Stark

droidus wrote: »

Well that's the broken window theory, I dont buy it myself.

Ive come round to the idea that the optics dont really matter. The problem is systemic and its to do with the entitlement and psychology of drivers and motoring. If every cyclist obeyed every law all the time some other reason to demonise them would be found.

Pretty much. Pedestrians are the worst offenders when it comes to flouting the rules of the road, yet they're not demonised in the same way cyclists are.

mistermaster

07Lapierre wrote: »

Here's a few ideas that have been tried and tested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYGL80qx71g

... and for all those things that work well there, somebody first had to go "what if...." and "maybe this is a good idea or maybe it's not...."!!

beauf

mistermaster wrote: »

I see that Irish Times articles mentions having advance green lights for cyclists, same as somebody else here mentioned a page or two back. I’ve a different take on that.

Let me start this one by saying I’m in a logistics job where I often have to think “what if…?” as we look for new solutions to long-running problems. Sometimes people like the idea. Sometimes they don’t. I just put them out there so people can think about them anyway. And I often put them out there before I’ve even fully thought them through myself.

So, here’s one of them – say we agree with the cyclist-specific lights at every junction, but what if we have them green for cyclists AFTER the motorised traffic has already moved off, instead of before?

i.e. green light for motorists to move off first, then that light goes back to red, then green for cyclists to go that way, before it’s back to red for cyclists too and traffic is allowed move in another direction.

If cyclists move off first, then unless there’s gridlock, it usually leads to the motorised traffic passing them before the next lights, then all stopping again, cyclists moving off first again, and the same traffic passing the same cyclists again.

But the other way round, cyclists still have a clear road ahead of them as they start of to move off, but the benefit of no immediate prospect of traffic coming from behind.

Personally I don’t really like it when I’m in a bunch of cyclists moving off together ahead of other traffic, because I’m conscious of the chance of some impatient driver or drivers coming from behind, trying to get round the whole bunch. If there’s only a small number of cars at the lights, I’ll often let them off first, just so I don’t have to think about them coming from behind. Some here might say I’m too meek but I’m in my 40s now and have only recently started cycling in Dublin again (after a gap of more than 20 years!) after work decided I need to be in the Dublin office two days per week. I was more gung ho back in my student days here!

But anyway – it’s just an idea. And I’m first to admit that some of my ideas are not great ones. Like I said up top, I just throw them out there to see what other people might think.

I think the idea is to get the cyclists through the junction and away from the danger. The danger at a junction is mainly from cars turning across cyclists with no warning, either overtake and immediately left hook, or someone head on turning right across head on traffic.

Ultimately if they were segregated this wouldn't be an issue.

beauf

droidus wrote: »

Well that's the broken window theory, I dont buy it myself.

Ive come round to the idea that the optics dont really matter. The problem is systemic and its to do with the entitlement and psychology of drivers and motoring. If every cyclist obeyed every law all the time some other reason to demonise them would be found.

New york is usually given as an example. But they did both a zero tolerance, broken windows etc, but also greatly increased the policing resources to enable them to do it. But broken windows theory is not the same as victim blaming.

We won't have the resources to do any of this. Especially when we waste so much money on other stuff.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

Ultimately if they were segregated this wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think segregation is the issue so much as dangerous on road cycle lanes. Where there is a junction at which cars predominantly go left, there simply should not be a cycle lane on the inside, like here. Likewise cycle lanes on the outside of roundabouts, they actually place the cyclist in more danger than if those lanes weren't there. If the road has separate lanes for left turning traffic, the cycle lane should too as we see here. If there isn't enough room for twin cycle lanes, the cycle lane should position the cyclist on the right of left turning traffic as shown here. Many of the problems with our cycling infrastructure a basically down to appalling and negligent design where the cycle lane works against the safety of the cyclist.

beauf

smacl wrote: »

I don't think segregation is the issue so much as dangerous on road cycle lanes. Where there is a junction at which cars predominantly go left, there simply should not be a cycle lane on the inside, like here. Likewise cycle lanes on the outside of roundabouts, they actually place the cyclist in more danger than if those lanes weren't there. If the road has separate lanes for left turning traffic, the cycle lane should too as we see here. If there isn't enough room for twin cycle lanes, the cycle lane should position the cyclist on the right of left turning traffic as shown here. Many of the problems with our cycling infrastructure a basically down to appalling and negligent design where the cycle lane works against the safety of the cyclist.

I was talking specifically about the suggested scenario of giving cars priority at lights. Or having different lights for cyclists. Neither works unless there is segrated infrastructure.

When cycling mixed in with cars I would always take the lane or take the space of a car in line with the traffic. It's the only way to take control of your road positioning.

Painted Lanes on the road is not segrated infrastructure. It's just paint that confuses some people. In traffic cars tend to stay off them which is something But otherwise meh.

07Lapierre

mistermaster wrote: »

... and for all those things that work well there, somebody first had to go "what if...." and "maybe this is a good idea or maybe it's not...."!!

True....and I assume that happened in Copenhagen and the results are in the video. My point is we don't have to because the Danes have already done the "what if" for us.

07Lapierre

North of 32 wrote: »

I don't mean to quibble. I am just wondering what you categorise as a road user.

Road users are any people who use the roads to get from A to B? What's your point?

fat bloke

On traffic corps and resources, there was a large garda operation in the name of safety during the week to catch 4 (four!!!) serial, identified, toll Bridge tailgaitors evading the toll. Sounds like a lot of time and investigation and hours went into the preparation and execution. And today I read about a massive surplus from overtolling and what's to be done with all the extra cash???!!!

If there's a logic there, I can't find it.

One camera on one lane of the Naas Rd for one day would catch more spoeders and phone users.

AndrewJRenko

beauf wrote: »

New york is usually given as an example. But they did both a zero tolerance, broken windows etc, but also greatly increased the policing resources to enable them to do it. But broken windows theory is not the same as victim blaming.

We won't have the resources to do any of this. Especially when we waste so much money on other stuff.

I don't think the broken window theory has stood the test of time;


https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrong?t=1562096006994

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-evidence-broken-windows-theory-neighborhood.html

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. Put it this way. Can we agree though that you're far more likely to see Gardai enforcing speed or drink driving than you are to see them tackling errant cyclists or pedestrians?

I'd guess the ratio of enforcement is something similar to the ratio of road deaths caused, which over the last 16 years is about 3,500:0 (that's deaths by motorist:deaths by cyclists)..

work

07Lapierre wrote: »

Here's a few ideas that have been tried and tested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYGL80qx71g

Amazing but heart breaking as we are in the polar opposite. I have approached political candidates about these issues and ideas and they look at yo like you are completely mising the main points and more than slightly alternative. I really do not know how to change this mindset!

07Lapierre

work wrote: »

Amazing but heart breaking as we are in the polar opposite. I have approached political candidates about these issues and ideas and they look at yo like you are completely mising the main points and more than slightly alternative. I really do not know how to change this mindset!

Agreed! ... Copenhagen is a wonderful city to visit. So great to see so many people...male, female, young and old, all cycling (without helmets or hi-viz). Dublin could be the same, but it will never happen,as their is no political will to change.

Mickiemcfist

mistermaster wrote: »

I see that Irish Times articles mentions having advance green lights for cyclists, same as somebody else here mentioned a page or two back. I’ve a different take on that.

Let me start this one by saying I’m in a logistics job where I often have to think “what if…?” as we look for new solutions to long-running problems. Sometimes people like the idea. Sometimes they don’t. I just put them out there so people can think about them anyway. And I often put them out there before I’ve even fully thought them through myself.

So, here’s one of them – say we agree with the cyclist-specific lights at every junction, but what if we have them green for cyclists AFTER the motorised traffic has already moved off, instead of before?

i.e. green light for motorists to move off first, then that light goes back to red, then green for cyclists to go that way, before it’s back to red for cyclists too and traffic is allowed move in another direction.

If cyclists move off first, then unless there’s gridlock, it usually leads to the motorised traffic passing them before the next lights, then all stopping again, cyclists moving off first again, and the same traffic passing the same cyclists again.

But the other way round, cyclists still have a clear road ahead of them as they start of to move off, but the benefit of no immediate prospect of traffic coming from behind.

Personally I don’t really like it when I’m in a bunch of cyclists moving off together ahead of other traffic, because I’m conscious of the chance of some impatient driver or drivers coming from behind, trying to get round the whole bunch. If there’s only a small number of cars at the lights, I’ll often let them off first, just so I don’t have to think about them coming from behind. Some here might say I’m too meek but I’m in my 40s now and have only recently started cycling in Dublin again (after a gap of more than 20 years!) after work decided I need to be in the Dublin office two days per week. I was more gung ho back in my student days here!

But anyway – it’s just an idea. And I’m first to admit that some of my ideas are not great ones. Like I said up top, I just throw them out there to see what other people might think.

I agree with the theory & am similar in that occasionally when there's 2 or 3 cars at lights I just stop behind them rather than have them overtake me after green.
However, it's 2019 & we're talking about a capital city - cars should be de-prioritised at every turn IMO. The slower & more frustrating it is to drive & the handier cycling/public transport seem, the better. It's a culture change that needs to happen & we're very slow to do it.

Tenzor07

mistermaster wrote: »

So, here’s one of them – say we agree with the cyclist-specific lights at every junction, but what if we have them green for cyclists AFTER the motorised traffic has already moved off, instead of before

Well, it's a nice sentiment and you're definitely giving that a lot of thought...


However that idea is completely wrong....

I watched "Cycle-Dutch" video on the Velo conference in Dublin and as he says, in cities we need to prioritise Humans first, not motor vehicles...
Cross city through traffic needs to be removed and the space on wide streets used for footpath widening and cycle lanes.

The only way to get people out of cars is to make the streets safe, and make the journey by bicycle quicker than a car, so cycle users get priority at traffic signals and enough space to cycle without a truck or car a couple of feet away from your elbow..

beauf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think the broken window theory has stood the test of time;


https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrong?t=1562096006994

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-evidence-broken-windows-theory-neighborhood.html


I'd guess the ratio of enforcement is something similar to the ratio of road deaths caused, which over the last 16 years is about 3,500:0 (that's deaths by motorist:deaths by cyclists)..

.. and those articles are equally guilty of not looking at other issues like increased employment, increased resources to policing or community resources. The so many factors at play it too simplistic to look at any one thing. But they do conceed..."the consensus among social scientists is that broken windows likely did have modest effects on crime."

Road death, statistics are flawed because we don't capture them properly, and the ones for cycles don't distinguish between someone falling off their bike in a park and being knocked off on a road.

mistermaster

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well, it's a nice sentiment and you're definitely giving that a lot of thought...

Thank you.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

However that idea is completely wrong....

And thank you again. Seriously. Like I said, all I want to do is throw out ideas for people to think about, and I appreciate honest feedback.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

we need to prioritise Humans first, not motor vehicles...

Ah, but what about the humans in those motor vehicles? As we often see pointed out when a newspaper says something like "a car collided with a cyclist", cars don't drive themselves. There are humans involved.

Am joking, by the way....!

silverharp

is there any anti collision (sensor) technology rules for new trucks? or is the tech even there yet?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

is there any anti collision (sensor) technology rules for new trucks? or is the tech even there yet?

Oh the tech is there for sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqNtzncxxcI