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

Dotted line cycle-lanes

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Yes, a random outburst on the evils of mortgage brokers - not aimed at me at all, I was so utterly paranoid to think that it was personal:rolleyes:
    Maybe I could borrow your imaginary lawyer?:D


  • Options
    #63
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Mucco wrote: »
    Stats show that you are more likely to be involved in a collision on the cycle lane than on the road.
    Check John Franklin's website

    I'd like to see how those stats are calculated. I'm sure in China or India that can't possibly be true.


  • Options
    #64
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Thanks for that. Its a cycle "track" not a cycle "lane". My point still stands
    That would be your statement as follows?:
    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Those who flout the law on the road end up liable. FULL STOP.
    So, if a car is parked illegally in a cycle track & a cyclist collides with it, the driver is liable (FULL STOP)? I don't think so.

    I think you'll find that breaking a road traffic regulation and being liable for an incident are not exactly one and the same thing. Liability is a complicated matter.


  • Options
    #65
    Studoc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭Studoc


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Yes, a random outburst on the evils of mortgage brokers - not aimed at me at all, I was so utterly paranoid to think that it was personal:rolleyes:
    Maybe I could borrow your imaginary lawyer?:D

    Considering Joe that in your previous postings you have managed to make crass, ignorant and insulting comments about,the handicapped, women and anyone who disagrees with you, it is clear that your skin is as thin as your ignorance is deep.


  • Options
    #66
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    I still stand by my point. I know of a car owner who was made liable for damage to another car when he parked illegally on double yellows - I suspect that the car owner in your scenario would have a liability if his/her parking was illegal


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Studoc wrote: »
    Considering Joe that in your previous postings you have managed to make crass, ignorant and insulting comments about,the handicapped, women and anyone who disagrees with you, it is clear that your skin is as thin as your ignorance is deep.

    Let it go you loser. Maybe you should dream up another imaginary friend - perhaps some imaginary female company might help you to chill out on a saturday evening:D


  • Options
    #68
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    I still stand by my point. I know of a car owner who was made liable for damage to another car when he parked illegally on double yellows - I suspect that the car owner in your scenario would have a liability if his/her parking was illegal
    Earlier you were quite adament, you said that the law was not ambiguous and that someone would be liable 'FULL STOP', now, you say that 'you suspect' and refer ambiguously to 'a liability'. This is not the language of certainty.

    Have you changed your position to agree that liability depends on the circumstances and not just if someone was breaking a regulation?


  • Options
    #69
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    The law says where you must cycle, not me. As stated, the insurance company will run a mile from a claim for a collision. If a cyclist ended up parlysed or something this could involve hundreds of thousand of euro - risk it? No thanks!

    I don't share your naive interpretation of the courtroom and what passes for legal argument when up against the insurance company barristers.

    There's a very simple, and legal, 'out'. A cyclist is allowed to leave a cycle track if they are turning right. All you have to say is that you were about to turn right and were just about to indicate the manouver when you were hit. I'd like to see a lawyer try to prove you were not.


  • Options
    #70
    Studoc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭Studoc


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Let it go you loser. Maybe you should dream up another imaginary friend - perhaps some imaginary female company might help you to chill out on a saturday evening:D

    You ignorant bully. By imaginary female company I presume you mean the virtual ones that keep you warm through the lonely nights?


  • Options
    #71
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    When will there be an 'ignore the troll' option in the drop-down related to a username?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Studoc wrote: »
    You ignorant bully. By imaginary female company I presume you mean the virtual ones that keep you warm through the lonely nights?

    What part of let it go do you not understand? You don't seem to be very bright tonite!
    As a happily married guy, I don't experience too many lonely nights, I suspect that it is something you are more familiar with than me. I suppose you could dream up a real cutie instead of the litigation lawyer:D


  • Options
    #73
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    kenmc wrote: »
    There's a very simple, and legal, 'out'. A cyclist is allowed to leave a cycle track if they are turning right. All you have to say is that you were about to turn right and were just about to indicate the manouver when you were hit. I'd like to see a lawyer try to prove you were not.

    Yes, you could lie and you might get away with it provided
    a) there are no witnesses (unlikely)
    b) there are no CCTV images (funny how many of those things about nowadays)
    c) there is a right turn at or near the collision point

    I don't like those odds!


  • Options
    #74
    Studoc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭Studoc


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    What part of let it go do you not understand? You don't seem to be very bright tonite!
    As a happily married guy, I don't experience too many lonely nights, I suspect that it is something you are more familiar with than me. I suppose you could dream up a real cutie instead of the litigation lawyer:D

    Your poor, mail order wife.


  • Options
    #75
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    Joe- do you think cycle lanes should be mandatory for cyclists?

    There is no legal question here, they currently are mandatory. That is the law. Joe is right that in an accident this point would come up.

    I think the law is wrong. I am interested here in Joe's opinion.

    And could we stop with the petty namecalling, lets stick to the point.


  • Options
    #76
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Yes, you could lie and you might get away with it provided
    a) there are no witnesses (unlikely)
    b) there are no CCTV images (funny how many of those things about nowadays)
    c) there is a right turn at or near the collision point

    I don't like those odds!
    Why would you need to have a right turn near the collision? You could be turning into a driveway, you could have discovered that you were on the wrong road, you could have discovered that you forgot something at home and had to go back for it.... there are plenty of reasons you might be about to turn right, but never got the chance to because some cager took you out.

    Do you cycle much Joe? If not maybe you should give it a go sometime, it'll certainly make you a better driver if nothing else.


  • Options
    #77
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    kenmc wrote: »
    There's a very simple, and legal, 'out'. A cyclist is allowed to leave a cycle track if they are turning right. All you have to say is that you were about to turn right and were just about to indicate the manouver when you were hit. I'd like to see a lawyer try to prove you were not.
    Ken- this is actually only the case if (1) it is a non-mandatory (dashed-line) cycle track, (2) the cyclist has made a signal that they are turning right. Both have to be true. With a mandatory (solid line) track, a cyclist is not legally allowed leave it to turn right. They must cross the traffic lanes after the stop line at the junction. Obviously I disagree with this but that is the law.


  • Options
    #78
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    blorg wrote: »
    Joe- do you think cycle lanes should be mandatory for cyclists?

    There is no legal question here, they currently are mandatory. That is the law. Joe is right that in an accident this point would come up.

    I think the law is wrong. I am interested here in Joe's opinion.

    And could we stop with the petty namecalling, lets stick to the point.

    Well my view is that cycle lanes (sorry, tracks) should be used - thats why they were provided in the first place. I do however sympathise with the plight of cyclists regarding the inadequate design and layout of cycle tracks. I would certainly support the redesign of and further role out of integrated cycle tracks.
    My experience as a cyclist is purely recreational/staying fit (sort of) so I guess I don't get into stressful situations that commuter/courier cyclists get into.
    I also sympathise regarding the cycle track in the Phoenix park (the way you lose right of way at the junctions with the side roads) I used to use the Park every day for 3 - 4 years.
    I see both sides of the debate (like most people on this forum) and I have had plenty of experience of militants on both sides. I was nearly killed on my bicycle in Castleknock about 5 years ago by a driver who simply didn't see me and I for one am more than happy to use a cycle track where one is provided. I simply cannot see how it would be safer to choose the main road (where you can definitely get creamed) versus a cycle track where you can't.
    It seems to me that many cyclists choose the road because its quicker for them, not safer.


  • Options
    #79
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    blorg wrote: »
    Ken- this is actually only the case if (1) it is a non-mandatory (dashed-line) cycle track, (2) the cyclist has made a signal that they are turning right. Both have to be true. With a mandatory (solid line) track, a cyclist is not legally allowed leave it to turn right. They must cross the traffic lanes after the stop line at the junction. Obviously I disagree with this but that is the law.
    And if you are turning into your house for example? You have to continue a mile or 2 down the road until you come to the next junction? really?


  • Options
    #80
    rp
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭rp


    BostonB wrote: »
    I'd like to see how those stats are calculated. I'm sure in China or India that can't possibly be true.
    The important thing about stats is not the calculations but the compilation.
    The main study Franklin quotes, IIRC, is Milton Keynes in the UK (a town with a lot of cycle paths). Here I think it was shown that the chances of an accident increased by about 30% for cycle path users over road cyclists. The figures can't be too far wrong cuz Dutch & German studies came up with similar figures.
    It is not hard to understand why, either: approach a side road on a cycle path, and you have to do a very unnatural 270 degree head movement to check for cars, most places where cycle paths start or end involve doing things car drivers aren't looking out for, and many turns require leaving the cycle path from a position that is far from ideal.
    Anyone using cycle paths regularly in Ireland could add plenty more examples from personal experience. The important point is, roads were designed for cars, and any road user not positioned where cars would be is going to be at a safety disadvantage. The 'safety' some feel with cycle paths is illusionary - they are there, as their inventors (the Third Reich in the 1930s) to keep the roads clear of annoying bicycles to prevent delays to the motorised traffic.
    Sorry... shouldn't mention the Emergency.


  • Options
    #81
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    Thanks for stating your position clearly Joe, sometimes your views come across as very motorist-centric, overly so perhaps. I'm glad to see that you have actually experienced the same things that we're complaining about.
    Joe Malone wrote: »
    It seems to me that many cyclists choose the road because its quicker for them, not safer.
    But sure that's exactly why people choose to drive cars rather than walk or take public transport. Why should cyclists be any different?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    kenmc wrote: »
    And if you are turning into your house for example? You have to continue a mile or 2 down the road until you come to the next junction? really?

    alternatively you could simply dismount and walk the bike across the road when it is safe to do so - makes more sense than adding a few miles to the journey anyways


  • Options
    #83
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    But sure that's jaywalking, which I believe is also illegal, if not enforced, in ireland!


  • Options
    #84
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    kenmc wrote: »
    Thanks for stating your position clearly Joe, sometimes your views come across as very motorist-centric, overly so perhaps. I'm glad to see that you have actually experienced the same things that we're complaining about.
    But sure that's exactly why people choose to drive cars rather than walk or take public transport. Why should cyclists be any different?

    Yes and many motorists exceed the permitted max speed also, but because it saves time does not make it legal. Or driving the wrong way on a one way street - it would save me loads of time but its illegal and therefore a responsible motorist doesn't do it. There would appear to be a lesser culture of compliance from cyclists though - probably down to the lack of enforcement and I'm sure plenty of drivers ignore the law when they can get away with it - I don't condone it though and I certainly wouldn't try to justify it. Many cyclists on this forum actually justify their law breaking by dissing the law - that is a major cultural/mindset difference.
    My point on this thread though was to simply point out that there are consequences for breaking the law and I outlined a scenario whereby a cyclist would lose out in a major way for flouting the law - it was meant to highlight the risks cyclists are unwittingly taking by their behaviour. My posts were met with an savage amount of resistance and people trying to poke holes in my point and justifying law breaking. A lot of playing the man, not the ball to borrow a soccer phrase.


  • Options
    #85
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    kenmc wrote: »
    But sure that's jaywalking, which I believe is also illegal, if not enforced, in ireland!

    only illegal if done within 15 metres (not entirly sure on the distance) of a pedestrian crossing


  • Options
    #86
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    What age are u? 10? Such a juvenile attitude to take.

    It's not juvenile at all. It's based on years of cycling experience. Experience I gained by being out there on the road and knowing what I'm talking about. If you wish to come cycling with our group some time, it would be great. It would help understand our view point.


  • Options
    #87
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    But surely if we are expected to obey the rules of the road, then we should be afforded the same rights as the rest of the users of the road, for example the right cycle on the road . Or, if we're not entitled the same rights as other road users then why should we be expected to obey these rules? It's all a bit hyprocritical really, isn't it?


  • Options
    #88
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Thanks for the invite but I generally prefer cycling on my own - at my own pace. I seriously doubt I would be able to keep up with serious cyclists such as yourself. I actually seek out "safe" routes such as the Phoenix Park - this whole taking control of a lane and being assertive does not do it for me - I empathise with the motorist that is getting delayed (just my outlook on life, don't shoot me for it)


  • Options
    #89
    John_C
    Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    There would appear to be a lesser culture of compliance from cyclists though - probably down to the lack of enforcement
    I think it's a combination of mostly 2 things. A lack of enforcement and the presence of some transparently stupid laws. When I'm driving I obey the law and road markings with practically no exceptions. When I'm on my bike I approach each unfamiliar road with an open mind and pick the route I think is best. The difference between the two is mostly an issue of confidence for me. I know that if I follow the road markings in my car I won't regret having done it but if I follow the cycle markings while on my bike I'll find myself in all sorts of strange and unexpected situations.


  • Options
    #90
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    kenmc wrote: »
    But surely if we are expected to obey the rules of the road, then we should be afforded the same rights as the rest of the users of the road, for example the right cycle on the road . Or, if we're not entitled the same rights as other road users then why should we be expected to obey these rules? It's all a bit hyprocritical really, isn't it?

    not quite following you there to be honest. can you clarify what you mean?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    kenmc wrote: »
    And if you are turning into your house for example? You have to continue a mile or 2 down the road until you come to the next junction? really?
    If your house is on the right then dismounting as Joe suggests and crossing as a ped would indeed be the only legal option. But did you know- it is similarly illegal for a car to stop to let a passenger out where there is a mandatory cycle lane? (Unless they have broken down.) This is the law.

    Personally I prefer a legal code that is actually followed and follow-able.


Advertisement