Cyclists versus Motorists

dogmatix

Here's a tale from both sides starring yours truly. Hopefully it will illustrate the incredible morons who inhabit both the motoring and cycling camps.

Scenario 1:
I'm cycling home from work last week and I stop at the junction of Bridgefoot street and Thomas street (yes I am that incredibly rare breed of Dublin cyclist - I stop at red lights). At green, I start to move forward only for some fu*kwit to charge across to Thomas court. He was probably banking on the slow reaction of the traffic to give him the time to nip across. I'm forced to brake suddenly. I flip him the bird and he has the gall to stop further up and swear at me. The colossal pr*ck.

Scenario 2.
I'm driving home from Ballinteer last night and driving through the junction of Templeogue road and Templeville road (coming from Springfield avenue). Then some fu*kwit comes from behind the line of cars waiting for their green light and proceeds to cycle straight across the junction in front of me. He did not even bother looking to his right! Naturally he had no helmet on him. As I was hitting the brakes I remember thinking "nice bike - a Specialized MTB - I used to have one of those...". Lucky for him I have a good reaction time, brand new set of tyres on the car and it had a full service just recently. Otherwise I would have been stopping about 2 feet beyond his left femur and pelvis.

So i'm thinking - why are red lights regarded by most cyclists and many motorists as an optional thingy, or maybe as some sort of challenge (lets see how long they are red before it gets a bit dangerous to break them). Or maybe it is a bull thing - you now the old "red rag" issue?

As for helmets - these are a legal requirement I believe. I always wear a helmet, because I have personally witnessed what can happen to a cyclist’s heads when they think they are "not cool" and then decide to make contact with a car bonnet or hard road surface. The results are not pretty and involve lots of bright red fluids leaking from your head onto black tarmac.

I hope that bloke last night is aware how lucky he is. And maybe the 90% of Dublin cyclists who think stopping at red lights is just so "square" might think again and sign up to http://www.stopatred.org campaign. And hey - maybe motorists might join up too!

I've posted this at both the motoring and cycling forums.

seamus

dogmatix wrote: »

As for helmets - these are a legal requirement I believe. I always wear a helmet, because I have personally witnessed what can happen to a cyclist’s heads when they think they are "not cool" and then decide to make contact with a car bonnet or hard road surface. The results are not pretty and involve lots of bright red fluids leaking from your head onto black tarmac.

Oh crap, quick - put the lid back on. Helmets aren't a legal requirement and their overall safety benefit is disputed. There are big long threads here about.

I think the general consensus we've managed to reach about helmets is that when worn correctly, yes they will decrease your chances of serious head injury in a crash. However, studies show that wearing a helmet increases your chances of being involved in a crash in the first place.

trinewbie

oobydooby

What exactly do you hope to achieve with this thread? Most cyclists do stop at most red lights. Helmets are not mandatory. Both these topics lead to flame wars on anonymous fora and have been discussed before. It's true there are morons everywhere, on all sides of every divide.

Also why the title 'motorists versus cyclists'? As a cyclist I'm not against motorists, and I hope they're not against me.

DirkVoodoo

What are we to take from this? That you are both a model cyclist and motorist and everyone else is an eejit...point noted, thank you, next.

People break red lights all the time, all you can do as a cyclist is have the awareness to spot this and not get crushed under their wheels.

Chips Lovell

oobydooby wrote: »

Most cyclists do stop at most red lights. Helmets are not mandatory.

In my experience most don't. I've said this here before, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've cycled across town and not seen one other cyclist stop at the lights. For the most part, its commuter types doing this.

Bicyclegadabout

Let's get rid of red lights altogether. Green and amber too, while we're at it.



:):rolleyes::o:mad::(:eek::cool::pac::D;)

ahem.

seamus

el tonto wrote: »

In my experience most don't. I've said this here before, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've cycled across town and not seen one other cyclist stop at the lights. For the most part, its commuter types doing this.

Agreed.

Most cyclists ignore red lights, unless by breaking them they're going to get squished.

oobydooby

el tonto wrote: »

In my experience most don't. I've said this here before, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've cycled across town and not seen one other cyclist stop at the lights. For the most part, its commuter types doing this.

There are plenty of cyclists who don't stop at every light, I'm not going to argue against that. I commute through town every day and I'm usually not the only cyclist waiting at lights, and it's rare enough that another cyclist would breeze through. When they do though, it's remarkable. As for the commuter types, well most cyclists in the city (Dublin) are commuters (or couriers) but they might be racers or MTBers on the weekend or evening. The city isn't great for mountains or training:eek:

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

In my experience most don't. I've said this here before, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've cycled across town and not seen one other cyclist stop at the lights. For the most part, its commuter types doing this.

I must say I've seen plenty of red light breaking with bunches going through junctions at events like the W200 too. I would never cross a junction on a red but must admit that I'll take a left turn on one if it is safe.

daymobrew

This is going to be another pointless thread on red lights and the stupidity of road users. Closing.

PM me if anyone wants to argue the case for reopening.