Anti-cyclist rant in the Times

Cabaal

DadaKopf wrote:

And how many people are saying the same stuff about pedestrians. In the city centre, they are the single-most dangerous object on the road. We also need a campaign, like in Scandinavian countries, where jay-walking and crossing without a green man, is a prosecutable offence.

DadaKopf, Gardai have had the power to fine jay-walkers for atleast the last 3 years, as far as I know its a 25e fine for it.

saobh_ie

DadaKopf wrote:

But at least when you *are* hit, you can assure the court that the driver was at fault, not you.

You dead right.

Getit? Get a clue. Your personal safety is in your hands, nobody elses. I know personal experience, ball sack twisting and burstingly experience, that you can be 100% in the right in the legal sense...

But screw all that, cycling or motorcycling I'd rather right (in the alive sense) than dead right. Something to bear in mind, the rules of the road don't always serve your best interests so never be afraid to break them.

Cyclist boxes at junctions. Hell yeah I'm going to put my motorcycle slap bang in the middle of them. You think I'm going to sit back between/behind/in front of cars, ha! If a cyclist arrives while I'm waiting they can easily go around me.

I draw the line at riding in cycle lanes, I value my tires, they're the only think keeping me alive at 100mph and cycle lanes are full of crap.

pete4130

saobh_ie wrote:

I draw the line at riding in cycle lanes, I value my tires, they're the only think keeping me alive at 100mph and cycle lanes are full of crap.

I think you just proved the cyclists point....driving at 100mph?

Ghost Rider

I'm not normally a man to resort to smileys but, in all fairness, .

pete4130 wrote:

I think you just proved the cyclists point....driving at 100mph?

rubadub

Civilian_Target wrote:

Originally Posted by micmclo
I admit to breaking red lights but only at pedestrian crossings when it is safe: never at junctions.

I don't buy that - what if you hit a pedestrian, there's absolutely no recourse to that and it happens very easily. Plus it gives other road users a reason to hate you..

He did say "when it is safe", so I doubt he is going 35mph through a crowd of toddlers. 20% of the time when I come to a pedestrian light there is nobody at all at them, either some kid has walked passed and pressed the light for no reason, or the pedestrian pressed it and then decided to break the law and cross while it was red, leaving it to change later. I break them myself, if there are people there I will slow down completely and "walk" on the bike, or cycle at a snails pace, I have never come close to ever harming anyone or even getting a dirty look from a pedestrian.

I image the motorists who complain about cyclists breaking the law would have much less of an issue if somebody commited the same crime yet was on foot travelling at the same speed, same weight, with the similar mechanical protrusions.

Ghost Rider

I agree. When motorists complain about cyclists breaking red lights etc., it is so often motivated by anger or resentment rather than a desire to improve road conditions for everyone.

It should be said that just because cyclists so often take the rules of the road as a "guide to best practice" rather than a set of strict rules (rightly so, in my view), resentment isn't the only response drivers can have...

Yesterday, a van stopped next to me at the lights at the bottom of Leeson Street. The traffic was unbelievably bad and it was steaming hot. He rolled down his window and said "I'll trade you a chocolate bar for that bike" I laughed and we had a conversation about how much better it is to be cycling when the traffic is in gridlock. He ended up giving me the chocolate bar anyway (- needless to say, I won't be telling my parents about it).

rubadub wrote:

He did say "when it is safe", so I doubt he is going 35mph through a crowd of toddlers. 20% of the time when I come to a pedestrian light there is nobody at all at them, either some kid has walked passed and pressed the light for no reason, or the pedestrian pressed it and then decided to break the law and cross while it was red, leaving it to change later. I break them myself, if there are people there I will slow down completely and "walk" on the bike, or cycle at a snails pace, I have never come close to ever harming anyone or even getting a dirty look from a pedestrian.

I image the motorists who complain about cyclists breaking the law would have much less of an issue if somebody commited the same crime yet was on foot travelling at the same speed, same weight, with the similar mechanical protrusions.

Keith C

I have 2 dents in the back of my car from cyclists hitting my car. Both times I was stuck in rush hour traffic, handbrake on not moving, & had left ample room on left hand side (used to drive motorbike so always leave enough room for motorbikes/cyclists to get thru)
Point is cyclists have no insurance, the two incidents the cyclists then went up on the paths without even apologising or offering to pay & cycled away leaving me with cracked paint work.
Granted not all cyclists do this, but thats been my 2 experiances.

So how many of you cyclists would actually stop & offer contact details along with paying damage to a car you have hit??

markpb

Keith C wrote:

So how many of you cyclists would actually stop & offer contact details along with paying damage to a car you have hit??

I've been cycling on and off for about 8 years now and I've been involved in two accidents. One was a car that stopped sooner than I expected (coming up to the back of a line of traffic), minor dent to the rear so I stopped, apologised, offered to pay and left my address with her. The other time I hit a pedestrian (he suddenly walked onto the road without looking and from behind a pillar) and I stopped, made sure he was okay. He was a big chap so I was actually worse off than him

Without descending into another flame war, there have been plenty of times when drivers have done silly things (undertaking, stopping suddenly to let traffic cross in front, changing lanes without indicating or looking, etc) and have almost put my life in danger. Not scratched my paintwork or damaged by bike but could, quite easily, have injured or killed me.

rubadub

Keith C wrote:

So how many of you cyclists would actually stop & offer contact details along with paying damage to a car you have hit??

Probably the same % as the % of "shopping trolleyists" who would, most shopping trolleyists and cyclists tend to be the same species so I would expect them to act in similar ways.

Civilian_Target

rubadub wrote:

He did say "when it is safe", so I doubt he is going 35mph through a crowd of toddlers. 20% of the time when I come to a pedestrian light there is nobody at all at them, either some kid has walked passed and pressed the light for no reason, or the pedestrian pressed it and then decided to break the law and cross while it was red, leaving it to change later. I break them myself, if there are people there I will slow down completely and "walk" on the bike, or cycle at a snails pace, I have never come close to ever harming anyone or even getting a dirty look from a pedestrian.

Right, often there's no-one waiting at the crossing when the signal goes off but it's not at all unusual for a pedestrian behind you to hear that signal and think ooh, green man and leg it onto the crossing without looking. If you hit them then, you'd be in the wrong.

I image the motorists who complain about cyclists breaking the law would have much less of an issue if somebody commited the same crime yet was on foot travelling at the same speed, same weight, with the similar mechanical protrusions.

Yeah, of course. It's fuelled by resentment that you're getting there quicker than they are. But, you're still breaking the law, and they hate you for getting away with it, fuelling a dangerous attitude towards cyclists in the motoring community. So why stoke the fire? It only costs you a few seconds to wait.

Fact is, the law says the red lights at a pedestrian crossing mean that all traffic must stop and yield right of way to any pedestrians that might be there. Occasionally it might be a stupid law, but it doesn't endanger you to obey it, nor does it more than marginally impede your progress, so why break it?

rubadub

Civilian_Target wrote:

Right, often there's no-one waiting at the crossing when the signal goes off but it's not at all unusual for a pedestrian behind you to hear that signal and think ooh, green man and leg it onto the crossing without looking. If you hit them then, you'd be in the wrong.

Yes I would be in the wrong. If any pedestrians were near it, waiting or not, then it is not safe. In that case I would slow completely and "walk the bike" through, i.e. have the cross bar between my legs and walk through as long as I am not obstructing anybody.

Civilian_Target wrote:

so why break it?

The honest truth is because I can and I do not see me doing any harm (other than fuelling the anger of manic motorists). When I say "I can" I mean that I can get away with it, I have broken the law countless times in front of the gardai who obviously thought I wasnt doing enough harm to warrant a fine/arrest/caution, they probably know the law was not intended to stop the action I was doing even if it technically was illegal.

I break the law far more as a pedestrian, if I was to wait at all lights walking or cycling it would all add up to a fair bit of time, on the bike it is the break in momentum that I dislike. I have never broken a light in a car even if there is no car for miles since I fear prosecution via cameras.

saobh_ie

pete4130 wrote:

I think you just proved the cyclists point....driving at 100mph?

Did you see me say where? I'm obviously not doing it in cycle lanes. =D

The fact is, my bike is capable of propelling itself to 100 mph. I'd imagine a tire blowing up or suddenly deflating on a motorcycle at 10mph would be hairy.

As said by others in the thread the RotR are to be considered on a bike but they're not always best practise. But anyway, I'm glad I haven't collected the new bike yet, that means I'm going home on the motorcycle w/associated rain gear. =D

But then I have to go for a run... pox.

Ghost Rider

Nothing is more depressing than the thought that, despite all the social and environmental benefits that you bring as a cyclist and despite the comparatively low levels of risk to which you subject other road users, the laws are still made for motorists and for the culture that motoring has created - a congested, volatile, poisonous culture to which even the state itself by now appears to have an ambivalent, if not downright combative, attitude.

The "stupid laws" that are the logical outcome of our motoring culture might not directly endanger cyclists (although they sometimes do) but many cyclists feel, quite rightly, that they are being unfairly punished by them.

Whatever about one’s personal choices in relation to observing the law, the law itself capitulates to the motoring culture. In that respect, the laws endanger cycling itself. We can capitulate to the motoring culture or we can protest against it.

Posting to Internet forums might be one form of protest; breaking red lights might be another.

Civilian_Target wrote:

Right, often there's no-one waiting at the crossing when the signal goes off but it's not at all unusual for a pedestrian behind you to hear that signal and think ooh, green man and leg it onto the crossing without looking. If you hit them then, you'd be in the wrong.



Yeah, of course. It's fuelled by resentment that you're getting there quicker than they are. But, you're still breaking the law, and they hate you for getting away with it, fuelling a dangerous attitude towards cyclists in the motoring community. So why stoke the fire? It only costs you a few seconds to wait.

Fact is, the law says the red lights at a pedestrian crossing mean that all traffic must stop and yield right of way to any pedestrians that might be there. Occasionally it might be a stupid law, but it doesn't endanger you to obey it, nor does it more than marginally impede your progress, so why break it?

pete4130

@ Kieth C,

The same has happened to me and once to my friend on occasions where drivers damaged our stationary parked bikes (locked to bike racks). My incident was on college green where an SUV reversed and parked illegally down the road from Habitat, reversing into my brand new road bike (the irony being its first time evre being locked in the city). Luckily I came back to my bike while the driver was still there (waiting to sell art to a client on the side of the street?). The damage wasn't too extensive, more asthetic than physical and I did manage to harrass him into giving me compensation for the damages that just about covered what needed to be done.
The other incident was a friend who locked his bike at Heuston station and went home to Galway. He came back the next day to see his bike shaped like a banana from a driver who presumably reversed into it....I think you can guess there was no details left for a 100% destroyed bike.

@ everyone in general:

Driving and cycling can be compared to class distinction. Alot of drivers presume because they have a car, which are generally more expensive than most bikes that they have a greater right of use on the roads and use the road tax reason to back it up. If that was the case, somebody driving a 2.0 litre engine sized car would have more rights to road space over a driver of a 1.9 litre engine sized car.....the same way a road tax paying motorist assumes they have more rights over a cyclist.
Road tax is paid by motorists as the cars they drive cause wear on the roads and pollute the atmosphere. Road tax is not paid to give you more rights on the roads than a large number of bikes could ever cause.

daymobrew

pete4130 wrote:

Road tax is paid by motorists as the cars they drive cause wear on the roads and pollute the atmosphere. Road tax is not paid to give you more rights on the roads than a large number of bikes could ever cause.

We all pay 'road tax' via our income tax. Vehicle owners pay vehicle tax. It's an important distinction. So, all tax paying citizens have as much right wrt road use. Cyclists obviously cause less wear to the roads and atmosphere.

pete4130

Without seeming pedantic I think its obvious I meant vehicle tax. As you said we all do have the same right to use the roads which was the point I was making coupled with the fact that drivers who pay vehicle tax think they have a greater right than road users who do not pay vehicle tax....just try tell that to the drivers who beep to get around cyclists to get to that red light 20 yards ahead of them and sit there for a few minutes until it turns green, the drivers using the bike lane as an undertaking lane etc, the non-indicating sudden left-turning drivers who don't use their mirrors.......

saobh_ie

pete4130 wrote:

The same has happened to me and once to my friend on occasions where drivers damaged our stationary parked bikes...

Actually, that veryily sucks. I'd imagine its probaly quite common given the state of street furniture, which bikes are in turn locked too. I've had and friends have had people damage and interfere with 7000 to 20000 euros worth of taxed motorcycles and had "Ah sure its only a bike." thrown in thier faces.

Peoples attitudes in general towards 100 to 3000 euros worth of untaxed* and unregistered** pushbikes must be absolutly dire.

* Not implying they should be.
** Far to impractical to implement. I'd imagine.