Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

1356789

Comments

  • #62
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dukedalton wrote: »
    I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.




    Which side of the signal-controlled bridge were you coming from, the North or the South?

    In which direction were the two elderly cyclists heading, and how were they "going the wrong way"?

    What is the speed limit on that stretch of road?

    How long is the interval between the red and green phases of the traffic signals? By which I mean, if I get the green light, how much time do I have to cross over the bridge before the traffic coming from the other side gets the green?


  • #63
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Its a poorly designed system there. You have to slow down very slow over that crest as you can meet a car or anything coming the other way. I've often met a car coming late over that bridge. If this was a regular route, you'd have experienced that a few times, and be expecting it. Of course someone going over it the first time wouldn't be expecting it. Which is why you have to expect to meet someone inexperienced with the junction every-time you go over it.

    Cyclist can't win here. Stay on the road and its dangerous for them, unless they can go as fast in wake a car. Go on the pavement, and its illegal.

    Alternatively if everyone just took it easy, they should see each other in enough time.


  • #64
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    If you're familiar with the location I'd say you'd be well placed to identify shortcomings with the traffic controls or whatever.

    However, this thread has been framed as a Rules of the Road issue, so I'm very interested in knowing how the "rules" (etc) apply in the situation as described by the OP.


  • #65
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    corktina wrote: »
    well! you live and learn...I thought you had to proceed with caution at all times.

    No, when the lights are amber
    You've to stop... ;)


  • #66
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    dukedalton wrote: »
    Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

    The answer is longer red time on both side... or, you know, the local authority having a bit of respect for their obligations to all road users.

    It's a design issue, not a rules of the road issue. As long as the cyclists passed on green, they are not breaking any laws.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    monument wrote: »
    The answer is longer red time on both side... or, you know, the local authority having a bit of respect for their obligations to all road users.

    It's a design issue, not a rules of the road issue. As long as the cyclists passed on green, they are not breaking any laws.


    Some of the questions I asked above have been at least partially answered.
    dukedalton wrote: »
    Lance Armstrong himself wouldn't be able to cross up and over that bridge before the lights turned red. So for two elderly people to attempt to do it was the height of stupidity. In the event, they made it less than half way. The safe thing to do would have been to dismount and walk over the footpath. But from what I've read on here, common sense and the pro-cyclist brigade seem to be uneasy bedfellows.
    dukedalton wrote: »
    Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.


    Absent all the salient facts, all I can say at this stage is that it looks to me as if the traffic signals and general road layout in this location are not set up with cyclists in mind. The OP says that not even Lance Armstrong could cross the bridge on a bike before the lights change, and if such is the case then it cannot be framed as a Rules of the Road issue. It's more ramified than that, I would suggest.


  • #68
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    dukedalton wrote: »
    Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

    No it is very much todays argument. You have now admitted that, you yourself, expect meet traffic coming the other way on this stretch even when you entered on green. But appears that you only feel the need to come on an internet bulletin board and complain about it when that traffic is elderly people on bikes who pose no physical threat to you whatsoever.


  • #69
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    No, when the lights are amber
    You've to stop... ;)

    stop with caution... :-) except in Cork where if you stopped , some guy would punt you up the rear end (and not in a good way)


  • #70
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭SeanW


    corktina wrote: »
    stop with caution... :-) except in Cork where if you stopped , some guy would punt you up the rear end (and not in a good way)
    Is it ever "in a good way?" :rolleyes:

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #71
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Just to be clear, none of the cyclists mentioned in the opening post were breaking a rule of the road?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    John_C wrote: »
    Just to be clear, none of the cyclists mentioned in the opening post were breaking a rule of the road?
    As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way.
    Without someone to verify the colour of the light as the cyclists passed it, it's impossible to say.
    It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other.
    No.


  • #73
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    No it is very much todays argument. You have now admitted that, you yourself, expect meet traffic coming the other way on this stretch even when you entered on green. But appears that you only feel the need to come on an internet bulletin board and complain about it when that traffic is elderly people on bikes who pose no physical threat to you whatsoever.



    They might if they got angry! ;)

    I've noticed some other features of the identified location that might have some relevance:
    • The distance between the two sets of traffic lights is approximately 220 metres, according to Google Maps.
    • There is a side road, south of the bridge iirc, which is also signalised.
    • There is a discontinuous footpath on one side of the bridge only.
    • No pedestrian crossings are provided at the traffic signals, despite the presence of residences in the area, as well as sports/leisure facilities apparently.
    • There are induction loops at both sets of lights.
    The OP says that not even Lance Armstrong could make it over the bridge on a bike before the lights changed, and, despite framing the issue as one of compliance with the Rules of the Road, seems to believe that elderly cyclists should dismount, walk on the discontinuous footpath, and perhaps cross the road where no facilities are provided to do so, in order to facilitate the passage of motorised traffic.

    Given the distance involved and the presence of induction loops, my guess is that it is likely that cyclists will pass through a green light, only to face oncoming motorised traffic that has triggered the induction loop on the other side. Plausible?


  • #74
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    corktina wrote: »
    he's on a one lane bridge controlled by lights and his is green. He's entitled to think he wont meet someone coming at him. It's probably the design of the light system to blame in that it doesn't allow cyclists enough time to reach the crown of the rise before allowing traffic through the other way.


    A green light only allows you to proceed with caution if the way is clear. On any of these kind of light controlled bridges you should always be anticipating slow moving traffic, and never just presume the way will be clear for you.


  • #75
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    why so? the lights should be designed so that the slowest traffic crossing them will reach the other side before that light goes green for opposing traffic,especially in the case where visibility is impaired on a hump-back bridge


  • #76
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,571 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    corktina wrote: »
    why so? the lights should be designed so that the slowest traffic crossing them will reach the other side before that light goes green for opposing traffic,especially in the case where visibility is impaired on a hump-back bridge

    because you waste huge amounts of time catering to the 1% then, rather than having got be aware and maybe 1 in 1,000,000 times you lose 10 seconds rather than every time. Less time wasted, less fuel burnt, less traffic...


  • #77
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    because you waste huge amounts of time catering to the 1% then, rather than having got be aware and maybe 1 in 1,000,000 times you lose 10 seconds rather than every time. Less time wasted, less fuel burnt, less traffic...less elderly cyclists


    fyp


  • #78
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,571 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    corktina wrote: »
    fyp

    :rolleyes:


  • #79
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    cdebru wrote: »
    A green light only allows you to proceed with caution if the way is clear. On any of these kind of light controlled bridges you should always be anticipating slow moving traffic, and never just presume the way will be clear for you.
    What? I always thought that a green light meant that you could proceed with all possible haste, cutting down obstacles, organic or otherwise, like a lawnmower through grass.


  • #80
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    corktina wrote: »
    why so? the lights should be designed so that the slowest traffic crossing them will reach the other side before that light goes green for opposing traffic,especially in the case where visibility is impaired on a hump-back bridge

    Its generally a good idea to expect someone breaking the rules.


  • #81
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    beauf wrote: »
    Its generally a good idea to expect someone breaking the rules.

    in this case though, it seems to me no one was breaking the rules...


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    corktina wrote: »
    in this case though, it seems to me no one was breaking the rules...

    Irrelevant. Driving to anticipate the lowest common denominator (someone breaking the rules) would encompass this situation also.


  • #83
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    fixing the lights so they are safe would get better results


  • #84
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    No Pants wrote: »
    What? I always thought that a green light meant that you could proceed with all possible haste, cutting down obstacles, organic or otherwise, like a lawnmower through grass.


    Red means stop, green means go, and amber means go faster. ;)


  • #85
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bigar wrote: »
    The driver seemed just fine and was able to stop. Motorists (and pedestrians) often seem to go into "what if" situations when trying to blame cyclist for road conditions.

    They have to follow the "what if" logic because the actual facts of the matter (number of people seriously injured or killed by cyclists) don't support the argument that cyclists are a "menace", or any sort of serious threat.

    That's why all these threads involve anecdotes about the cyclist who "nearly killed me" or whatever.


  • #86
    Surveyor11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Surveyor11


    camel jockey wrote: »
    The levels of cyclist compliance with the rules of the road in Dublin City centre is very disappointing. Braking red lights, cycling the wrong way on one way streets etc. The level of respect that many cyclists show pedestrians is very disheartening, particularly when many cyclists have a problem with their own treatment by motorists.

    TBH, for all vehicles and road users compliance is abysmal. Only real solution is cameras on the lights, as they do in the UK. Enforcement and harsh fines for all road users who break the law.

    I get the Luas into town a few times a week, and walk from Jervis to the south side for meetings. Here's a few non-scientific observations:

    Pedestrian Crossing at Millennium bridge - last week while waiting to cross, a 40' truck continues through the green man crossing here, much to the bemusement of the Spanish tourists waiting to cross. A previous week, I had to physically put my hand out and stop the person behind me, busy texting at a green man, but oblivious to the UPC van racing down the quay, straight through the green light. I'm surprised through by the amount of cyclists using this pedestrian bridge - I thought it was pedestrian only?

    Dame St / Georges Street is a peach of a junction for non-compliance of all road users - the Gardaí would clean up here on fines. Alas, even they couldn't be bothered stopping motorists and other road users breaking the red lights here, as the below accounts were done in eyeshot of 2 squad cars.

    You usually get the odd cyclist barrelling through the red lights, or cycling on the wrong side of the road at the Spar, but on Wednesday morning last I counted no fewer than 6 cars breaking the red light heading towards Trinity - straight through a pedestrian crossing. I had beckon to the 7th car to stop to allow me and a few others cross, which she duly did. Next day, same time, waiting to ross to get to St. Stephen's green direction, 2 cars and 2 taxis break the red lights in the same junction. At the same time, a private bus breaks to red light at the Spar, almost T-bones a cyclist who's taken the green light through the junction. Not perturbed, the bus driver continues around the corner, holding up the traffic coming from Trinity towards Dublin Castle.

    So that's 10 cars and a Bus on one junction in Dublin in a very short space of time. Now, I'm not condoning a cyclist breaking a red lights, per the [EMAIL="tw@t"]tw@t[/EMAIL] in front of me in Lucan this morning, but the fact is amongst Irish drivers we are incapable of sharing the road in a responsible and courteous manner. It's me, me, me outta my way for a sizable minority of road users.


  • #87
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    THe location in this thread, the bridge in Confey Leixlip is not so much regulated by teraffic lights because it is dangerously narrow but moreso because of the level of traffic using the bridge.

    The bridge is easily wide enough for a car and two cyclists riding two abreast to pass each other without incident but if the driver of the car is "hogging the road" and not "keeping left" there will not be room for anyone else on the bridge.


  • #88
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    corktina wrote: »
    fixing the lights so they are safe would get better results

    Better results than what. Less hypothetical accidents, or real accidents?

    How do you suggest you fix the lights for this kind of junction to facilitate slow traffic? You can't. Its an unsuitable junction end of. They should have a sign for cyclists to dismount, and cars to proceed with caution at a slow speed. Or widen the bridge its unsuitable the traffic its carrying now.


  • #89
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,389 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    dukedalton wrote: »


    My question is this:

    If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

    ANSWER: Yes...If caught, (just like any other road user).


  • #90
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    FWIW, according to openstreetmap there is a road and bridge in planning about a kilometre east of Leixlip Confey, which will link the M4 at Weston to Ongar. Perhaps the old bridge (i.e. the one under discussion) could be turned into a cycle/walking route, much like they do in the Netherlands when they build new roads.

    http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.3702/-6.4693


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Those lights are a stop gap solution that are a decade past their sell by date.


Advertisement