Critical Mass/Cyclists' Rights

-Chris- wrote: »

Some Most cyclists break red lights and cycle the wrong way up one-way streets.

.

I cycle everyday through town. I cover about 12kms a day at the minute, although i've only recently started back cycling after a bad accident involving another motorist which has left it's mark on my face and shoulder!
Personally i think such protests only serve to increase the hatred towards cyclists that is already widespread. Peoples attitudes to cyclists is already appalling, by no means is this a blanket statement covering everyone, but there are a lot of people out there to "get" cyclists.
Being a cyclist myself, i'd always be considerate when i encounter other cyclists when driving, but just as there are bad motorists, there are bad cyclists. The type with a death wish cycling at night in dark clothing without any lights. Oh and a high vis jacket is not a substitute for lights!

I experienced these idiots when I lived in San Francisco.

They caused untold chaos, strategically blocking off ramps at the Bay Bridge - used by 260,000 cars daily - resulting in traffic gridlock.

I also witnessed a cyclist kick and dent the door of a car, and when the driver got out he was assaulted. Another cyclist then threw a newspaper vending machine out across the road at the car driver.

The idea of Critical Mass to highlight road issues sounds good in theory. The reality was that public support turned completely against them.

I think the cyclist problem is quite serious in Ireland, more and more people are choosing to cycle to work.

Personally I am impartial to cyclists
Every time I see them they are either braking red lights, On the footpath, not watching where they are going. etc etc

As far as I am concerned cyclists should be treated as motorists. If they are using the road they should have to pay for some sort of insurance, have a license to cycle a bike, and have the penalty points system applied to them too. They should also be made wear a High Vis Jacket and approved helmet. they should be allowed in the cycle lane only

I know it sounds stupid but its the only with to deal with this issue!

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

I meet alot of semi-pro cyclists around my area(rural)..(they wear all the gear and spend hundreds on state of the art bikes) and although i know they are training or whatever,its hard to not feel annoyed when they go two-a-breast.
Ive ran on alot of these roads and i know they do it to avoid the horrible potholes but there must be an alternate.Better cycle lanes?

Two abreast is perfectly legal and explicitly mentioned as such in the legislation, it is frustrating that many motorists don't seem to realise this. Cycling is a social activity and this formation allows you to talk to the rider beside you. It also promotes visibility, is an efficient formation aerodynamically and in many cases with a sufficiently wide road is actually easier to overtake- a motorist needing to cross the centre line anyway will take twice as long to pass a substantial group of riders riding in single file.

On any group ride I have been on every effort is made to enable following cars to pass when safe to do so. This includes going single file where appropriate, the front rider in the bunch signalling to the car if he has a better view of the road being clear on the other side etc. 99% of the time motorists are courteous and appreciate this, we often get a flash of the hazards or a toot, etc.

Cycle lanes are not suitable for any form of serious riding and the Government's recent National Cycling Framework explicitly recognises this.

Critical Mass to me seems to be more about deliberately impeding motorists and insofar as it does this I think it is counterproductive and merely serves to portray cyclists as the "other" and "****."

Basic respect in both directions is really all that is required and we will all be able to share the road fine.

cascade35 wrote: »

If only this could become law!

It is the law and has been for over a decade. It is not generally enforced, perhaps because cycle tracks are often highly dangerous and thoroughly unusable. This is recognised by the Government so you will be pleased to know the law is being reversed this year and use of cycle tracks will no longer be mandatory.

Cycling on footpaths and breaking red lights is illegal and cyclists will occasionally be done for this. Driving/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is also illegal BTW and is at least as common and prosecuted probably as often.

@grahambo- I don't quite get how you can complain about cycling on footpaths and then say that cyclists should be forced to use any cycle lane- many of which are simply footpaths with a sign slapped on them. The magic sign doesn't make cycling there any safer, for cyclists or pedestrians.

-Chris- wrote: »

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Critical Mass cycling movement. Basically it's where a large group of cyclists meet up and then cycle through town en masse. It's designed to draw attention to cyclist issues (cycle lanes, in-town speed limits etc.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass


There are a few Critical Mass rides in Ireland, although they've been sporadic of late:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/94578



I've been following this thread on the cycling forum where the whole concept has been discussed (and quite often dismissed).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62807845


One poster suggested jokingly that they get the Motors heads involved. I don't think that's a bad idea, but rather than wade in over there, I'd like to see some opinions here.


So, as motorists or motoring enthusiasts etc, what do you think of the concept?

-Have you ever witnessed/been caught up in one of these?
-Do you cycle? Would you participate in one of these?
-Do you see merit in the idea?
-How do "cyclists' rights" fit in with your everyday motoring activites/attitudes?
-If you were involved in cycling activism, what would you think the most important issue is?


Every year cyclists get caught under trucks and are killed or get forced off the roads by cars passing too close.
Some cyclists break red lights and cycle the wrong way up one-way streets.

With the Dublin Bike scheme, there will be an increase in "casual" cyclists in Dublin, what can cyclists campaign for that will keep these guys safe?

I will echo some others and say this will only enrage more than a few motorists. Given that some people really get annoyed being delayed as I take a left and then a right on a pushbike, near where I live, this sort of protest will make a few go gaga. I really wish more cyclists would put lights on their bikes or least wear reflective gear at night.

i have no problem with cyclists as long as there not causing mayhem,the problem as mentioned is like a bad motorist but worse,a bad cyclist!!, i have seen people dressed in black cycling into oncoming traffic,old men on ancient bikes struggling up tiny hills,holding up cars, and the worst of all on rte news on the lauch day of the bike scheme in dublin,after they pointed out how important it was to wear a helmet,,then showed a woman smiling then cycling off with no helmet through a red light:eek:

if they want to be on the road,obey the rules of the road!

The actual law says:

S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997 wrote:

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

Note the ROTR is an interpretation of the legislation.

There are a good number of motorists that consider that cycling two abreast is simply illegal in any circumstance which is just not the case.

In any case I was making the point that Critical Mass did not seem to be limiting themselves to cycling two abreast but were spreading themselves all over the road which is clearly illegal. So we seem to be on the same page.

TimAllen wrote: »

The Rules of the Road CLEARLY state that cyclists must cycle in single file as follows:
page 161 Rules of the Road
"Do cycle in single file if cycling
beside another person would
endanger, inconvenience or block
other traffic or pedestrians."
....
Instead, cyclists seek full enforcement of the rules for other road users while ignoring "inconvenient" rules for themselves.

Tim, I suggest you read how the ROTR interprets itself. Where something is written as "do" or "do not", this is a best practice suggestion and not a legal requirement. Legal obligations are written as "must" or "shall not". Cyclists are not legally obliged to ride in single file. However, there are obviously other laws they could fall foul of if they cause undue delay to following motorists.

The problem with the public's perception of cyclists is that they're all lumped in together as, "cyclists". However, exactly the same as with cars, you have a number of clear (and easily spotted) subsets:

• Bog-standard commuters
• Grannies & Grandads on bikes
• Enthusiasts - sports and leisure cyclists (i.e. people who do it because they enjoy it and maybe even compete)
• People who are paid to do it (i.e. couriers)

The first and last groups here are the ones most likely to break the law, but unfortunately they ruin it for the lot of us.
But unlike car drivers, instead of saying, "Feckin couriers", you say, "Feckin cyclists". When the taxi drivers have a protest and block up the roads, we don't say, "Feckin car drivers". Why not? It's the same thing.

I don't consider every other car driver to be as contemptable as most taxi drivers, so why do non-cyclists treat all cyclists as if they're crusty-haired, hippy activists with no respect for the road? The reality couldn't be further from the truth.

This post is related to critical mass . You'll see from the thread on cycling that there's a sizeable amount of resistance to CM events from sports and enthusiast cyclists - the people most likely to obey the law in an increasingly hostile road space. Couriers and commuters will just get more aggressive as car drivers get aggressive, but for those of us who actually give a **** it affects us the hardest - and we don't even support it!

So instead of viewing critical mass events as "cyclists out to get us", they need to be viewed in exactly the same way you'd view a taxi strike - as one small group of individuals with an agenda using stupid protest mechanisms to try and get what they want. Most people who care about cycling, don't attend or condone critical mass events. Just like most people who care about driving don't attend taxi protests.

Any "cyclists rights" event should actually be focusing on two primary problems:
1. Enforcing/modernising the road laws where they affect cyclists - including laws applying to cyclists, but also those applying to cars (such as parking)
2. Turning commuters into leisure cyclists through free or subsidised training. Proper road technique actually allows you to *enjoy* the morning commute rather than see it as a battle for your life. I've never been involved in an incident on the road in the morning which wasn't mostly or entirely down to me dropping my attention for a split second, even when the other party (where there was one!) would be legally in the wrong.

I do a lot of cycling, and to be honest I find peoples attitudes to cyclists to be pretty OK for the most part.

I doubt if too many half serious cyclists would want cycle lanes. After all a reasonably fit person on a decent bike can maintain an average of 30km/h+ quite easily which won't unduly slow any car in the city centre.

TimAllen wrote: »

While I dont want to get involved in an off topic debate, I must correct your inaccurate statement above and suggest that it is you, in fact, who needs to read how the ROTR interprets itself. The terms it uses to differentiate legal requirement is "must" and best practice is "should"
A quick read of the rules I quoted on page 161 of the ROTR reveals that the two quoted rules appear under the "must" column i.e. legally obliged.

Actually you're right (I must have been working off the older version in my head!), but interestingly the second item of cycling in single file in heavy traffic is not written anywhere in law. So the ROTR is wrong, pretty much. There is no legal obligation on cyclists to cycle single file in heavy traffic and heavy traffic by definition is slow-moving therefore cycling two abreast in heavy traffic will not endanger, block or inconvenience other road users (assuming both cyclists are moving at the pace of the traffic).

Note that I'm not even attempting to defend CM events. They *do* routinely break the ROTR and no doubt cruise effortlessly through lights too
They would call it "civil disobedience", but civil disobedience isn't an effective bargaining tool when your cause isn't one of humanitarian grounds.

TimAllen wrote: »

The flaw I see in your last sentence is that cycling at 30km/h+ in the city centre is undesirable given the:
inferior braking power of bikes versus cars
the smaller size (and therefore visibility) of bikes versus cars means theres a much greater risk of the unexpected pedestrian walking out in front of you.

Given that all road users must "expect the unexpected" it is difficult to see how cycling at an AVERAGE of 30km/h could be justified in built up urban areas.

In any case, the subject matter is not about cyclists going 30km/h, its about the ones who group up and go at 5-10 km/h taking over the roads and inevitably, causing gridlock!
Another cyclist poster has said, CM activities are not supported by many cyclists so, even just on that basis, I think that CM events are wrong

I have never heard of CM, and really if people want to protest by blocking roads that is their right within the confines of the law. The farmers and taxi drivers have done it... this in my eyes is just another protest.

I'm just making a general comment that cyclists in general are not a particular hinderance. Your comment about the brakes in bikes is wrong, I have little doubt but that a bike will stop from 30km/h as quickly as a car, and in most cases quicker (some bikes now have hydraulic disc brakes... which is complete overkill)

And would you rather be hit by a cyclist or a car? lets get real here!

I love cars... that is why I have about 5k posts in the motors forum, and I own two dirty polluting petrols as well as a slightly less polluting diesel. However there has to be common sense... from both sides.

Given the attitude towards motorists from the cyclists posting in this thread I don't expect any mutual respect any time soon

As far as cyclist safety on the roads, well you are the first person responsible for your safety, so just follow the rules of the road and we'll all be fine...

seamus wrote: »

Motorists in general who don't cycle seem to have the above attitude, but often take it to the next level - i.e. "Cyclists are responsible for their own safety, it's none of my concern". When in reality you should react to a bike exactly the same way as you'd react to another vehicle on the road.

Thats not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that cyclists are much less visible on the road than any other road users and they should take that into account when using the roads

An example of this was a few years back I was cycling two abreast on the hard shoulder with a friend when a car pulled out from a side road. I could see from the drivers face that she hadn't seen us so I came to a stop but my friend kept going and the woman pulled right out on the road. My friend crashed into the side of her car and took off her wing mirror with his knee. He was limping for two weeks - I was fine. Basically I think if you pay closer attention to whats going on around you, you're less likely to encounter any problems on the road (of course this is no guarantee)