Bus Eireann driver stands against the cyclists!

SteM

Kingsize wrote:

its more serious if a motorist breaks a red light in this way a car is far more dangerous

This is only true in the case of cyclists actually slowing down to see if anyone is crossing the road. I've seen far to many cyclists (and I'm one myself) go through lights way to quickly to stop if someone does actually step out onto a pedestrian crossing. It happens at the bottom of the hill on St Patrick's Street an awful lot.

A bicycle hitting a pedestrian at pace can do an AWFUL lot of damage.

Kingsize

A bicycle hitting a pedestrian at pace can do an AWFUL lot of damage

agreed but i rather take my chances there than with someone in a car if given the choice

Ciaran_Dub

Kingsize wrote:

my point is that most accidents dont involve bicycles at all they involve motor vehicles hitting each other & in each case brought at least one person is deemed to be negligent.As far as i'm aware the majority of accidents involving cars & bikes or cars & motorbikes are caused by the driver.

And you have the stats to back that up then?

Is1ldur

kenmc wrote:

I .....give them loads of room when overtaking and always make sure that there's none up the inside of me when turning....

Do I even need to say anything....

kenmc

I never said that it wasn't illegal. My argument is that they both amount to one and the same thing.

A.S.H.

AM slightly comnfused by the dismounting from bike and walking part of this. In this situation is that you are at a crossroads and you want to go straight ahead and the pedestrian lights for straight ahead are green? if so then the traffic lights are also green. so the way I am taking it is that you want to go ahead and the lights are red but there is no traffic coming across your path. if you were a pedestrian you would just walk across so why wouldn't you just cycle? I think. In that situation it is illegal to walk across the road as it is jaywalking however people do it anyway and so do cyclists. Yes it is wrong but there is still a major difference between cycling across and driving. for one you are generally closer to turn and so can see further. Unlike a driver who at the very least has the front of his car in front of him limiting his view somewhat. Also due to the mass of a bicycle

Sorry Started typing this much earlier and got called away from desk so by the time I got back finished and hit post it had been answere Oh well

kenmc

ASH,
yeah it's when at a cross roads or a t junction or whatever and straight through lights are red, but cross traffic is green but there's none coming for about a week. In that case if I was on foot I would think nothing of crossing the road, just like every other punter in Ireland, as jaywalking is not something that I have ever heard of a copper taking someone to task on. So the argument is that I could get off the bike push it through like someone crossing with a buggy and get back on the other side. And from there it's not too hard to imagine forgeting the dismounting and walking bit, the end result is exactly the same - I have transported myself to the other side of the junction without having to wait for the lights.

In fact i'd argue that it's possibly safer to do this if it's safe to do so than to wait for the lights to green and the driver beside you decides that he wants to go left without looking to see if there's a bike alongside him - at least by going through the lights there's no risk of being clobbered like this. Again I will state that this is only something I will do if I am 100% confident that there is nothing coming up the road. I have no desire to die, I'm having too much fun here.

Victor

SteM wrote:

A bicycle hitting a pedestrian at pace can do an AWFUL lot of damage

Typical bicycle: 15kg
Typical small car 750kg

Number of deaths from cyclists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 1
Number of deaths from motorists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 500+?

Kingsize

for statistics try
http://www.nsc.ie/RoadSafety/Statistics/Name,145,en.html
Its not that difficult to work out really,even when you work out the main causes of car on car accidents
heres a quote from " Motorcyclists & Motorists – Sharing the Road Safely" also a national safety council publication

"It is estimated that in over 70% of crashes involving a motorcycle and a car, the car driver is at fault. The reason is that the driver failed to anticipate the presence of the motorcycle. Most crashes occur when a vehicle emerges from a junction into the path of the motorcyclist."

Kingsize

victor apologies i was quoting somebody else but omitted the quotation marks read back a few posts & youll see i was actually making the same point as you.

FX Meister

If they cut you off do what I do, cycle in front of them and don't let them pass. Any trouble and you can just say he cut you off already and you didn't want it to happen again in case you got injured the next time.

OFDM

Victor wrote:

Number of deaths from cyclists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 1
Number of deaths from motorists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 500+?

That's a meaningless statistic without giving the proportion of bicycles to cars...

Victor

OFDM wrote:

That's a meaningless statistic without giving the proportion of bicycles to cars...

Bicycles make up about 4-5% of traffic.

SteM

Victor wrote:

Typical bicycle: 15kg
Typical small car 750kg

Number of deaths from cyclists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 1

Number of deaths from motorists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 500+?

Actually Victor, Kingsize was quoting me. I specifically said damage, not death. I have seen pedestrians hit by bicycles cutting through crossings, it's not a pretty sight and I doubt the pedestrians I'm talking about care about those statistics.

Bicycles cutting through traffic lights can hurt pedestrians simple as that.

RasTa

SteM wrote:

Bicycles cutting through traffic lights can hurt pedestrians simple as that.

Oh do shutup, we would have to be going about 20mph to inflict any damage to a pedestrian. I personally seem to fall off my super charged raleigh max more then cars hitting me or pedestrains being at fault. Yea of course i allways break the lights, i've being cycling the same route for two years now and know my lights system.
Another thing i hate about cars is when there behind you for ages afraid to overtake you unless they have all of the other lane(mostly women). I like it when cars just scrape by me when they overtake.
Why should we pay road tax i dont understand that one.
p.s
Someone buy me a knew bike, the handlebars somehow ended up going under the crossbar when i was flying down the one-way hill(going the wrong way) near the fas place in ballyfermot and almost killed myself.

OFDM

RasTa wrote:

Oh do shutup, we would have to be going about 20mph to inflict any damage to a pedestrian.

I take it you've never had the front tire of a bike scrape the legs off you. Not pleasant...
Not to mention the damage a bike can do to a child...

SteM

RasTa wrote:

Oh do shutup, we would have to be going about 20mph to inflict any damage to a pedestrian.

Do you really need me to tell you what a foolish comment this is?

MorningStar

This is really frustrating to read.

There are bad cyclist and motorists! A bad cyclist will tend to be a danger to themself more than anybody else whereby a motorist can be adanger to everybody else around them.

If you are a cyclist you try to be safe because it 's your life on the line. You will be aware of your environment as you are exposed to it.

A motorist is contained in a safety cage and environment. A gust of wind will not effect you. Taking your hand off the steering wheel doesn't make your vehical unstable. If somebody hits you at 10 miles an hour you might complain but it won't kill you.

I drive and cycle.

As a driver at a junction I do not go the long way around the other vehical. This is against the rules of the road but common sense and use makes everybody do this.

As a cyclist I cycle on the path and use pedestrian light to get accross junctions. This is also common sense where there is enough path and not enough road. Motorist leave inches between the path and road so there is no choice.
I don't use certain cycle lanes as they are more dangerous than the roads. The cycle lane on the Coast Road is a prime example. It's on the sea side of the sea wall meaning there is no shelter from the wind so you can blown off your bike. The road is sheltered so safer to cycle on.

Consider cyclists because you can kill them while they might just scrape your paint.

Mossy Monk

why do most drivers find it difficult to indicate properly on a roundabout. trying to walk across the road at one is like playing a guessing game sometimes.

will i go, maybe he wont turn down this way. half way across the road you'd be thinking "WTF are you doing you stupid ****" and the nice driver who didnt bother to indicate i am sure is thinking the same thing aswell

Duckjob

kenmc wrote:

Well for one, I said it, and I quote "And yes, if there is red lights and there is definitely nothing coming the other way I will go through them - the logic being how is it any different than me jumping off the bike, running across the road and back on the bike - cept it's faster than dismounting and running. " Note the phrase "and there is definitely nothing coming the other way".

That's grand, sure I'll do the same when driving my car, i'll ignore the traffic lights and instead check out myself whether it's safe to proceed through red lights, but i'll only go if the way is DEFINITELY clear. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll have my 8 pints beforehand, but i'll only drive if i'm ok to. I'll be the judge of that.

Traffic lights exist for a reason. How many accidents happen every year because people thought their way was 'definately' clear when it wasn't ?

It's not up to anyone, cyclist or motorist, to decide when or where traffic lights should be obeyed or ignored. They are there to be obeyed. Anybody who does not have the maturity to accept this is going to be a menace on the roads and should not be there in the first place.

A.S.H.

Duckjob wrote:

It's not up to anyone, cyclist or motorist, to decide when or where traffic lights should be obeyed or ignored. They are there to be obeyed. Anybody who does not have the maturity to accept this is going to be a menace on the roads and should not be there in the first place.

And that is why from tomorrow no pedestrains will be allowed out of there houses. Quick question I live in Rathmines, there is a shop across the main road from me, should I walk 6 minutes down to the pedestrian lights wait for them to change and then walk 6 minutes up to the shop, buy my shopping (milk, tea cigarettes or some other small thing I realised I needed) before walking twelve minutes back to the flat or should I just cross the road, when there is no traffice coming. Just curious what you would do in that situation.

kenmc

Actually Duckjob,now that you mention that you also wanna go through a red in your car if there's nothing coming, it I've seen several places on the continent that at night time have flashing ambers at all lights in the crossroads so that if there's nothing coming from the other direction you don't have to wait for the lights to go green for you - the rule is "proceed through with caution, yielding to traffic from the left (remember it;s the continent - drive on the other side).
other places have pressure pads to indicate that there's a car there waiting to go through a light and as long as there is no car waiting to cross a road the lights stay green for the other road, even during the day. makes plenty of sense but of course our traffic planners are too bloody thick to think of something like this.
I can't condone your drinking 8 pints though. I (think I) know you're joking about this, but it's got nothing to do with the current thread on cyclists cycling through red lights instead of getting off and walking through them and getting back on again.

Duckjob

A.S.H. wrote:

And that is why from tomorrow no pedestrains will be allowed out of there houses. Quick question I live in Rathmines, there is a shop across the main road from me, should I walk 6 minutes down to the pedestrian lights wait for them to change and then walk 6 minutes up to the shop, buy my shopping (milk, tea cigarettes or some other small thing I realised I needed) before walking twelve minutes back to the flat or should I just cross the road, when there is no traffice coming. Just curious what you would do in that situation.

First of all, AFAIK it's not illegal to cross the road at places other than pedestrian lights unless you're actually jaywalking. Secondly if you as a pedestrian, choose to cross a road without the aid of a pedestrian crossing, the only person you are exposing risk to is yourself, not the person who is cocooned in a tonne and a half of metal and airbags.

kenmc wrote:

Actually Duckjob,now that you mention that you also wanna go through a red in your car if there's nothing coming, it I've seen several places on the continent that at night time have flashing ambers at all lights in the crossroads so that if there's nothing coming from the other direction you don't have to wait for the lights to go green for you - the rule is "proceed through with caution, yielding to traffic from the left (remember it;s the continent - drive on the other side).

which is fine, but the difference is in that situation, people aren't going to arrive into those junctions with an expectation of right of way, which is what happens when the lights are red one way and green for the other.

kenmc wrote:

I can't condone your drinking 8 pints though. I (think I) know you're joking about this, but it's got nothing to do with the current thread on cyclists cycling through red lights instead of getting off and walking through them and getting back on again.

Well to clarify, I WAS joking and I never drink and drive. The reason I brought it up is because the Irish drink/driving culture of the 70's/80's was based on the idea that people who decided themselves whether or not they were 'safe' to drive home after a rake of pints.
I'm guessing that if someone that told you they drink-drove and gave you the "I know my limit" line your response to someone who would be that it's not for them to decide. If all road users decided to disregard the ROTD our roads would decend into complete anarchy. The thread is about peoples attitude to the ROTD, and that was what I was drawing a parallel on, and in that context I think it's a perfectly valid point.


Where I live, there is a pedestrian crossing on the busy main road, followed immediately by a side road to the left. If I, as a motorist am comming out of that side road to turn left onto the main road, I may, depending on traffic, have to wait for the pedestrian lights to go red in order to get my chance to turn left out onto the main road. When the lights turn red, I have an expectation that I should, while the lights remain red, be able to safely pull out to turn left without a cyclist ploughing into the driver side of my car because he saw that there was 'definitely' no pedestrian on the crossing. I've seen this exact accident happen several times at this particular junction.

pickarooney

Duckjob wrote:

which is fine, but the difference is in that situation, people aren't going to arrive into those junctions with an expectation of right of way, which is what happens when the lights are red one way and green for the other.

I know of several junctions in Eindhoven where even though the green man is lit up and pedestrians are crossing, cars pass through coming from in front of as well as behind the pedestrians, expecting right of way. And not just occasionally, the motorists systematically drive through the pedestrian crossing with the green man showing, regardless of how many old ladies are crossing. It's one of the strangest rules I've seen (along with stopping on a roundabout to give priority to joining cars), but it does exist.

kenmc

Where I live, there is a pedestrian crossing on the busy main road, followed immediately by a side road to the left. If I, as a motorist am comming out of that side road to turn left onto the main road, I may, depending on traffic, have to wait for the pedestrian lights to go red in order to get my chance to turn left out onto the main road. When the lights turn red, I have an expectation that I should, while the lights remain red, be able to safely pull out to turn left without a cyclist ploughing into the driver side of my car because he saw that there was 'definitely' no pedestrian on the crossing.

I don't think that just because the pedestrian lights have gone red that you should expect that you will be able to pull out safely. No matter what the state of play, you are only entitled to pull out of a junction *when it is safe to do so*, no matter who or what broke the lights. So even if a cyclist does come through those lights (or perhaps crossed the road at the lights or walked around the lights and then started cycling towards you) just cos the lights further up the road from you are red does not give you right of way to pull out blindly.
However, if you were sitting at a traffic light controlled T junction waiting to turn left, and you get a green light to turn left then I think you have every right to *expect* (but there's no guarantee) that you will not be hit from the right by something breaking the lights. Different circumstances there though.
Oh and it's no harm to glance right as you are about to turn left to make sure that someone didn't break the lights anyway, it's all very well and good being in the right, but being alive is better - getaway car drivers don't generally believe in many rules - of the road or otherwise.

Duckjob

kenmc wrote:

I don't think that just because the pedestrian lights have gone red that you should expect that you will be able to pull out safely. No matter what the state of play, you are only entitled to pull out of a junction *when it is safe to do so*, no matter who or what broke the lights. So even if a cyclist does come through those lights (or perhaps crossed the road at the lights or walked around the lights and then started cycling towards you) just cos the lights further up the road from you are red does not give you right of way to pull out blindly.
However, if you were sitting at a traffic light controlled T junction waiting to turn left, and you get a green light to turn left then I think you have every right to *expect* (but there's no guarantee) that you will not be hit from the right by something breaking the lights. Different circumstances there though.
Oh and it's no harm to glance right as you are about to turn left to make sure that someone didn't break the lights anyway, it's all very well and good being in the right, but being alive is better - getaway car drivers don't generally believe in many rules - of the road or otherwise.

All very true, but I think you missed my point slightly, which was that by disregarding the rules of the road, the cyclist is reducing the overall safety level of the situation and increasing likelihood of an accident.

Safe road usage is about minimising risks, and any driving instructor will tell you that predictability = safety on the roads.

I would always look right to check my way was clear before pulling out, (as I hope would most people), but it is still possible to look and miss a cyclist whizzing up along the side, particularly if it's nighttime and, having deemed that the red light does not apply to him, said cyclist has also deemed that it's not neccessary to have a light on the front of his bike.

kenmc

Fair enuff I accept your point on that, but there is still the case in the instance I quoted above where the cyclist legally (for once ) crosses at the lights and hops onto his bike and cycles away where the lights are still red, and has broken no rules, yet the danger still exists. But since you look right, and I have lights and a yellow jacket, then at least you and me are sorted

Hotblack Desiato

Duckjob wrote:

if you as a pedestrian, choose to cross a road without the aid of a pedestrian crossing, the only person you are exposing risk to is yourself

Not quite. Over the years a few motorcyclists have been killed after hitting, or trying to avoid, a jaywalking pedestrian.

Also - I personally know two bikers who were hit by cyclists breaking red lights at crossroads. In both cases the damage to the motorbike was in four figures (LUCKILY no injuries to either party), in both cases the cyclist avoided paying a penny and the biker had to pay for all the repairs themselves :mad:

I do sympathise with cyclists in general though, they really are treated like dirt, I ride a motorbike daily in Dublin city centre but I wouldn't dare do it on a bicycle.
Like bikers though, there is a minority who are clueless or insane and give the rest a bad reputation. And, like bikers, the responsible majority suffers from the fact that car drivers get no training on how to share the road with people on two wheels. In fact they don't see you as a person at all, just an obstacle.

Duckjob

Well, the junction I gave as example has the side road right next to the pedestrian crossing, so the it would be a pretty dozy driver that would get caught in that situation.

You mentioned earlier though if you came to a pedestrian crossing, and there were people on it, you would yield to them. What really maddens me is the sight of cyclists flying and swerving through a crossing full of pedestrians at full whack.

That used to appall me even as a cyclist. It's just wrong!

Trojan

Cyclists do not pay road tax for their use of the road.

Car drivers do.

Some cyclists break red lights (and fail to indicate) consistently.

Therefore bicycles should be banned from the roads.

MorningStar

Trojan wrote:

Cyclists do not pay road tax for their use of the road.

Car drivers do.

Some cyclists break red lights (and fail to indicate) consistently.

Therefore bicycles should be banned from the roads.

If you paid attention you would notice you don't pay road tax either you pay "Motor Tax".

As I am a cyclist and I indicate your next statement fails. Both cyclists and motorists break lights. Amber by the way means stop unless it is unsafe to do so as many motoists don't seem to understand.

If bicycles were banned from the roads cars would take longer to get anywhere as more people would be using cars and the like.

Cop on and understand the real enemy is baddly planed roads and enforcement of traffic laws. No one group is correct.

Cyclist are more at risk than most road users and you should leave them alone.

Civilian_Target

Trojan wrote:

Cyclists do not pay road tax for their use of the road.

Car drivers do.

Some cyclists break red lights (and fail to indicate) consistently.

Therefore bicycles should be banned from the roads.

That's quite funny - unless you're not taking the piss, in which case you're quite mad.

RasTa

Another thing that should be implemented is that people traveling into Dublin City Center or any(Cork etc) should have to pay a tax or a levy i.e in London.

theCzar

I drive and cycle

I have WAY more sympathy for cyclists* while driving, because i've suffered so much down the years from inconsiderate drivers who believe driving any way they damn well please is an inalienable right. I've been knocked down twice, their fault.

Regardless of whether you're driving or cycling, you should respect all other road users (the motor tax argument is the most retarded thing i've heard in quite some time, STFU)

I stop at lights, but if i find nothing is coming, then rather than hold up the impatient driver behind when the light goes green, i break the light.



*Not bike-couriers, they're mad as hatters.