One year driving ban for breaking red light!..

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

Don't you dare to judge or criticise my driving, any driver who would driven this turn would be happy to drive around it much faster as its sight line allows you to see whats in front of you but oncoming traffic can appear very quickly especially when the oncoming car is doing 110km/h.

Cyclists who cycle two+ abreast on any stretch of road deserve to be flattened if you ask me; you don't see too many car drivers out for a leisurely drive thinking, ya know what lets drive toghether.

There is judgement and their nannyish driving, it is not practical to take every slightly less than perfect turn at very low speed because their is some stupid brain-dead cyclist there cycling three abreast.

I can't beleive anyone can condone cyclists cycling two abreast especially a driver himself. Look at it this way, I decide to overtake going into a turn and I go under an oncoming lorry and am killed, the lorry driver is then destroyed and racked with guilt knowing he killed another person, the lorry driver is then told he failed to anticipate etc. What sort of crap would this be me as the hypothetical overtaker in the turn was wrong and caused the whole mess not the lorry driver. Similarly cyclists cycling two or three abreast are causing trouble and should get no protection from the law when they cause an accident.

Do yourself and everyone a favour and go and have a read of the rules of the road. Cycling 2 abreast is not illegal, and actually makes a large group of cyclists easier to overtake by making the group shorter and more compact. It takes twice as long to overtake 20 cyclists sinle file as it does 20 2 abreast, as they are effectively only 10 bike lengths long.

stovelid

Deleted User wrote: »

and actually makes a large group of cyclists easier to overtake by making the group shorter and more compact. It takes twice as long to overtake 20 cyclists sinle file as it does 20 2 abreast, as they are effectively only 10 bike lengths long.

This assumes that you're not facing into oncoming traffic.

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

This assumes that you're not facing into oncoming traffic.

If there is oncoming traffic, and the marked lane is not wide enough to overtake safely without crossing into the oncoming lane, wait for a break in the oncoming traffic. Very easy and time lost is rarely more than 10-15 seconds.

Stinicker

Deleted User wrote: »

Do yourself and everyone a favour and go and have a read of the rules of the road. Cycling 2 abreast is not illegal, and actually makes a large group of cyclists easier to overtake by making the group shorter and more compact. It takes twice as long to overtake 20 cyclists sinle file as it does 20 2 abreast, as they are effectively only 10 bike lengths long.

Yeah such things are fine where there is room but why go making yourself more dangerous on the road? Just because something is legal does not make it either right or ok, I think the attitudes displayed here just shows the complete disdain show by cyclists for other road users. They have this green pontificating ego that they are automatically right.

Cyclists are not required by law to have insurance or pay no road taxes despite using the road like every other road user. A cyclist at speed could easily kill a pedestrian especially a child yet they treat the road like it is a free for all on open season.

stovelid

Deleted User wrote: »

wait for a break in the oncoming traffic..

And wait. And wait.

While the road ahead is clogged with a load of lycra-clad zealots, all chatting away with each other and studiously ignoring the massed, fascist, environment-killers behind them.

Overature

this is the funniest thing ever, getting banned from driving when your not in car

Coriolanus

Agent J wrote: »

I would actually like to see what happened to this cylist happen more. There should be penalties for those who break the rules of the road. Only way to put manners on a lot of people.

I'd like to see this in general. Cars idling in yellow boxes, peds bolting across intersections, cyclist shenanigans. Every group of road users has terrible habits and it really does need to stop.

The whole area is badly in need of consolidation and I understand that a bill is due to come before the Dail to do just that -- when they get around to it."
He recommended that people read his 1,400 page book on road traffic law in Ireland for reference. "It's cheaper than sleeping pills," he added.

ledgebag

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

Yeah such things are fine where there is room but why go making yourself more dangerous on the road? Just because something is legal does not make it either right or ok, I think the attitudes displayed here just shows the complete disdain show by cyclists for other road users. They have this green pontificating ego that they are automatically right.

Cyclists are not required by law to have insurance or pay no road taxes despite using the road like every other road user. A cyclist at speed could easily kill a pedestrian especially a child yet they treat the road like it is a free for all on open season.

Sigh. There is no such thing as road tax. Try these two URLs and tell me which one works:
www.roadtax.ie
www.motortax.ie

A bicycle does not have a motor therefore one does not have to pay motor tax on it. Also motor tax does not pay for road construction and maintenance, this comes out of the general taxation pot, which everyone pays into. The vast majority of cyclists own cars on which they pay motor tax anyway. Insurance is not really necessary on a bike due to the minimal risk posed to others. Hundreds die every year under or behind the wheels of motor vehicles, it is exceedingly rare for a pedestrian to be killed by a bicycle. Statistically speaking, one is more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than struck and killed by a bicycle. As for the whole "green" thing, no one I know that rides a bike does so for environmental reasons, but rather for exercise, sport, or transport, although I'm sure some people do cycle for environmental reasons but so what?

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

And wait. And wait.

While the road ahead is clogged with a load of lycra-clad zealots, all chatting away with each other and studiously ignoring the massed, fascist, environment-killers behind them.

I want you to perform a thought experiment for me. Imagine you are in your car and on the dash is one of those dual stopwatches they use in chess to determine how long each player has taken to take all their turns throughout the game. Run stopwatch A everytime you are stuck behind a group of cyclists, and stopwatch B everytime you are stuck behind other cars in a traffic que. Which do you think will have amassed more time at the end of a days driving?

short circuit

Stinicker wrote: »

Yeah such things are fine where there is room but why go making yourself more dangerous on the road? Just because something is legal does not make it either right or ok, I think the attitudes displayed here just shows the complete disdain show by cyclists for other road users. They have this green pontificating ego that they are automatically right.

So you take a dangerous turn at 70kmph and are surprised by cyclist and oncoming traffic and its the cyclists making themselves a danger on the road and showing disdain. I would have thought its you showing disdain to anything smaller and less protected than you.

stovelid wrote: »

And wait. And wait.

While the road ahead is clogged with a load of lycra-clad zealots, all chatting away with each other and studiously ignoring the massed, fascist, environment-killers behind them.

I bet both of you sit quietly behind a tractor. Why is it that if its a group of cyclists, you start seeing red.

pickarooney

Stinicker wrote: »

Cyclists are not required by law to have insurance or pay no road taxes despite using the road like every other road user. A cyclist at speed could easily kill a pedestrian especially a child yet they treat the road like it is a free for all on open season.

I don't there's such a thing as road tax in Ireland, unless it's been introduced recently.

I wonder if they brought in compulsory insurance and some nominal cycling tax in direct exchange for setting up proper cycle paths, separated from the road, on all roads above a certain class would cyclists go for it? If I were in that situation I definitely would, and it would make life so much easier for everyone.

short circuit

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't there's such a thing as road tax in Ireland, unless it's been introduced recently.

I wonder if they brought in compulsory insurance and some nominal cycling tax in direct exchange for setting up proper cycle paths, separated from the road, on all roads above a certain class would cyclists go for it? If I were in that situation I definitely would, and it would make life so much easier for everyone.

Forget compulsory insurance and proper cycle paths ... if someone provided insurance for cyclists ... theft, personal liability etc .. I would take it.

I believe we will have the 1st company entering the Irish market to provide this soon.

stovelid

Deleted User wrote: »

I want you to perform a thought experiment for me. Imagine you are in your car and on the dash is one of those dual stopwatches they use in chess to determine how long each player has taken to take all their turns throughout the game. Run stopwatch A everytime you are stuck behind a group of cyclists, and stopwatch B everytime you are stuck behind other cars in a traffic que. Which do you think will have amassed more time at the end of a days driving?

You're just engaging in whataboutery again. Answering every single criticism of cyclists with a denunciation or negative example of motorists (of which there are many).

We're discussing the foolish behaviour of cyclists. I would be just as willing to contribute same to a thread on idiot motorists.

In the case of your analogy, some cyclists are guilty of "legal/permissible" but discourteous behaviour, not unavoidable delays at lights or traffic jams.

short circuit wrote: »

I bet both of you sit quietly behind a tractor. Why is it that if its a group of cyclists, you start seeing red.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

A tractor blocks the road because of size, not because of an optional travel formation.

That said, tractors are often very guilty of selfish behaviour by not pulling in to let a backlog of traffic out. You know, considerate behaviour towards other road users not based on your own needs or the result of an ground axe.

SleepDoc

Stinicker wrote: »

Don't you dare to judge or criticise my driving.... Cyclists who cycle two+ abreast on any stretch of road deserve to be flattened if you ask me.....

Hmmmm. Interesting. Sensitive to criticism of driving yet insensitive of the right to life of others going about their lawful business.

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

You're just engaging in whataboutery again. Answering every single criticism of cyclists with a denunciation or negative example of motorists (of which there are many).

We're discussing the foolish behaviour of cyclists. I would be just as willing to contribute same to a thread on idiot motorists.

In the case of your analogy, some cyclists are guilty of "legal/permissible" but discourteous behaviour, not unavoidable delays at lights or traffic jams.

Running red lights and colliding with other vehicles on a bike-obviously stupid.
Riding 2 abreast- not stupid, and not illegal (I know you know this, but many apparently don't)

There are many reasons for riding 2 abreast:


Makes the group shorter and more compact

Discourages unsafe overtaking; if a road is too narrow to safely overtake a double line of cyclists without crossing the centre line, it is most probably too narrow to overtake a single line, but that wont stop some motorists from trying, seeing something coming the other way halfway through the manouvre, cutting into the line of cyclists and slamming on the brakes-something I have personally witnessed far too many times.

Makes it easy to talk to fellow riders, helps the time pass on 4 hour plus rides

Allows rotation of riders at the front; the riders at the front have to work significantly harder than the riders behind, because they are exposed to the wind, standard group riding technique is to move up on the right, move over to the left when you get to the front, then the next person that was behind you on the right pulls over to the left in front of you and so on until you are at the back, then cross over to the right again and repeat.

I have no problem whatsoever admitting that there are some complete muppet cyclists out there, but the assertion that riding 2 abreast is illegal, dangerous or even discourteous is one I can not allow to go unchallenged.

stovelid

Deleted User wrote: »

There are many reasons for riding 2 abreast:

Makes it easy to talk to fellow riders, helps the time pass on 4 hour plus rides

Allows rotation of riders at the front; the riders at the front have to work significantly harder than the riders behind, because they are exposed to the wind, standard group riding technique is to move up on the right, move over to the left when you get to the front, then the next person that was behind you on the right pulls over to the left in front of you and so on until you are at the back, then cross over to the right again and repeat.

.

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

.

What? Just because it has benefits for the riders doesn't negate the previous 2 points that you so studiously ignored.

stovelid

Deleted User wrote: »

What? Just because it has benefits for the riders doesn't negate the previous 2 points that you so studiously ignored.

I believe that the reasons quoted are the most important to you.

Whereas - as a fellow road user - I no more care about your need to chat with your mates on long journeys or what best conveniences your sport than you should care about what CD I play in my car?

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

I believe that the reasons quoted are the most important to you.

Whereas - as a fellow road user - I no more care about your need to chat with your mates on long journeys or what best conveniences your sport than you should care about what CD I play in my car?

Well I was just including those for your information. Some people derive pleasure from learning things they didn't know before, I thought you might be one of those people. The fact remains, 2 abreast is often safer and more convenient for both cyclists and motorists (even if the latter sometimes fail to realise it) and the law agrees with me on this.

DirkVoodoo

stovelid wrote: »

I believe that the reasons quoted are the most important to you.

Whereas - as a fellow road user - I no more care about your need to chat with your mates on long journeys or what best conveniences your sport than you should care about what CD I play in my car?

It's safer for everyone. Morons don't try and overtake you on blind bends and risk swerving into the cyclists when they see something coming against them at the last second. I've seen this happen but thankfully it didn't result in a crash.

Secondly, try passing a group of riders strung out in a line on a winding road as opposed to bunched up 2 abreast.

Thirdly, it's legal.

Think about it for a while.

SleepDoc

Big Steve wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Its about time that cyclists have to start putting licence plates on all bikes by law and/or have some form of 3rd party insurance......Oh by the way I work in insurance.

Not a hint of a conflict of interest here!

desertcircus

So cycling two abreast is legal, it's safer (discourages dangerous overtaking) and it's clearly not particularly rare since you seem to have seen it often enough to be enraged by it. Yet it's still the cyclists' fault that you decided to drive at high speed into a narrow blind turn and had to stamp on the brakes sharpish. NEWSFLASH: has it occurred to you that the cyclists are going two abreast precisely to discourage dangerous overtaking from the kind of driver that thinks going through narrow blind turns at high speed is a good idea?

Seriously: try and think about this from the cyclists' perspective. If they cycle in file, then they face unsafe overtaking and dangerous driving. If they cycle two abreast, they drastically cut down on unsafe overtaking. A driver in a ton of steel and aluminium looks at the risk of having to cut back in in a very different way to a cyclist on a 10kg bike with nothing more than a helmet and lycra, so the cyclist has to do something to make the drivers avoid behaviour that might endanger the cyclist.

DirkVoodoo

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't there's such a thing as road tax in Ireland, unless it's been introduced recently.

I wonder if they brought in compulsory insurance and some nominal cycling tax in direct exchange for setting up proper cycle paths, separated from the road, on all roads above a certain class would cyclists go for it? If I were in that situation I definitely would, and it would make life so much easier for everyone.

Nominal? I think I read that the cost of "cycle paths" is something along the lines of 70,000 euro per km. How much of a nominal tax would fund the entire country's requirement for an adequate cycling infrastructure? Roads are not paid for by motor tax alone. Most damage to cycle lanes is also caused not by bikes, but by road works and parked vehicles. Who pays for the repairs?

Cycle lanes/paths have to interact with roads at some point, generally at junctions, creating all sorts of hazards. It is impossible to completely isolate bikes from the rest of traffic and it is safer that bikes are ever present rather than a "surprise" appearance at junctions. I'm not sure I follow your logic, how is it easier for everyone? We can barely setup and maintain the crappy, dangerous ones we have already, how can we get these duper dutch highways without immense cost (think "Luas project") and hassle on the roads.

I think what is "easier" for everyone is for drivers to respect the rights of cyclists on the road and for cyclists to obey the rules of the road if they want to use them. Simple.

DirkVoodoo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I think I read that the cost of "cycle paths" is something along the lines of 70,000 euro per km.

What!!?! Find that figure a bit suspect, considering most cycle lanes consist of a few stenciled bicycle logos and some red paint.

DirkVoodoo

Deleted User wrote: »

What!!?! Find that figure a bit suspect, considering most cycle lanes consist of a few stenciled bicycle logos and some red paint.

How much does it cost?
The cost will vary greatly depending on whether the cycle lane is on-road or a new shared-use cycle path. The average cost is about £5,000 per km for an on-road shared cycle lane and £65,000 to £75,000 per km for a new off-carriageway shared use path [10].

http://www.brake.org.uk/engineering-cyclepaths-and-pavements

No numbers for Ireland, but a good indicator as to the costs may be gleaned from this:

THE DEPARTMENT of Transport is to spend €10 million next year on a new cycle route linking Rathmines to Fairview Park in Dublin, which will be largely off the road and segregated from traffic.

The 7km route will provide a safer environment for commuters accessing the main employment areas of the city, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey said

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254134575.html

Well that explains the apparent preference for building (painting) the useless and pointless on road or on footpath varieties.

CramCycle

EnterNow wrote: »

When I see a car barreling up onto the path because of a red light to cross a junction Ill acknowledge the comparison of cars/cyclists. In the meantime however, everyone knows they are the biggest danger to themselves & everyone else on the roads.

You should come upto the N11 junction beside Donnybrook any night of the week between 12 and 5. I have to stop on a green due to cars speeding through red lights all the time, my front and rear light are as bright as a cars but it makes no difference. These are the biggest danger to me on the roads.

Stinicker wrote: »

yesterday I came into a narrowish blind turn doing about 75km/h to 80km/h only to encounter two idiot cyclists cycling abreast and there was a car coming against me so I had to stick the car to the road, luckily for the cyclists I had good brakes and was taking it lightly as I had already encountered not two but three abreast cyclists earlier on a slightly wider stretch of road. Had I been going faster I would have had to swerve and crashed into the innocent oncoming car and I'd be in the wrong.

75/80km/h = taking it lightly on blind turns

are you mental, lucky they were riding at least 2 abreast so you could see them in time as if they were single file you could of easily missed any cyclist/pedestrian at that speed on a BLIND turn.

And yes you would have been in the wrong, in my 12 years of driving on country roads I would never take a blind turn at that speed, and wether in the speed limits or not you could have/should have been arrested for dangerous driving, if I was on my bike or in my car i would have gotten your plate details and reported you (if it were possible).

Stinicker wrote: »

100kms; I felt I was driving to suit the conditions as its a narrowish road with no hard shoulder and a fine day brought out the numpty cyclists who haven't clue how to cycle properly.

BLIND TURN Stinicker = numpty road user

stovelid wrote: »

I really hate the lyrca-brigade - the serious cyclists that cycle two or three-abreast. I actually been told by one that as it's not illegal (assume this is true?) that it's OK, which sums up the attitude of some cyclists perfectly: not a whit of thought to the inconvenience caused - and lack of civility shown - to other road users, just we can get away with it: fuck you.

2 abreast is legal, AFAIK 3 abreast is not (not certain though). The reason most adopt this position is to stop you overtaking until there is, in their opinion, a safe place to overtake, so it goes with anyone I have cycled with. To pull in would give the impression that it was safe to overtake when it may not be. IMO they are usually doing it with your safety as well as theirs in mind.

Stinicker wrote: »

Don't you dare to judge or criticise my driving, any driver who would driven this turn would be happy to drive around it much faster as its sight line allows you to see whats in front of you but oncoming traffic can appear very quickly especially when the oncoming car is doing 110km/h.

Cyclists who cycle two+ abreast on any stretch of road deserve to be flattened if you ask me; you don't see too many car drivers out for a leisurely drive thinking, ya know what lets drive toghether.

There is judgement and their nannyish driving, it is not practical to take every slightly less than perfect turn at very low speed because their is some stupid brain-dead cyclist there cycling three abreast.

I can't beleive anyone can condone cyclists cycling two abreast especially a driver himself. Look at it this way, I decide to overtake going into a turn and I go under an oncoming lorry and am killed, the lorry driver is then destroyed and racked with guilt knowing he killed another person, the lorry driver is then told he failed to anticipate etc. What sort of crap would this be me as the hypothetical overtaker in the turn was wrong and caused the whole mess not the lorry driver. Similarly cyclists cycling two or three abreast are causing trouble and should get no protection from the law when they cause an accident.

Are you seriously condoning overtaking on a bend? You can tell others not to criticise your driving but I will freely do it. Breaking of such common sense laws such as not overtaking on a bend and speeding on blind turns is a sign of someone with little or no road experience ( or just someone insanely lucky). Its the reason why they have to make it mandatory for fully licensed drivers to accompany learners. There are terrible abuses of the law on both sides, this is true, but the case at issue of cyclists running two abreast should not be. As for the cars driving side by side, I often see cars driving in the overtaking lane when they are not overtaking, same thing surely?

stovelid wrote: »

A tractor blocks the road because of size, not because of an optional travel formation.

That said, tractors are often very guilty of selfish behaviour by not pulling in to let a backlog of traffic out. You know, considerate behaviour towards other road users not based on your own needs or the result of an ground axe.

Tractor drivers, unless completely ignorant, will wave you on as soon as they can see a clear road ahead. They won't wave you into a blind corner or if there is an oncoming vehicle, because then they will be at fault for any incident. I am from the country and have been driving a tractor for longer than I have been driving a car or cycling and this is again just common sense driving.

pickarooney

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Nominal? I think I read that the cost of "cycle paths" is something along the lines of 70,000 euro per km. How much of a nominal tax would fund the entire country's requirement for an adequate cycling infrastructure? Roads are not paid for by motor tax alone. Most damage to cycle lanes is also caused not by bikes, but by road works and parked vehicles. Who pays for the repairs?

Cycle lanes/paths have to interact with roads at some point, generally at junctions, creating all sorts of hazards. It is impossible to completely isolate bikes from the rest of traffic and it is safer that bikes are ever present rather than a "surprise" appearance at junctions. I'm not sure I follow your logic, how is it easier for everyone? We can barely setup and maintain the crappy, dangerous ones we have already, how can we get these duper dutch highways without immense cost (think "Luas project") and hassle on the roads.

I think what is "easier" for everyone is for drivers to respect the rights of cyclists on the road and for cyclists to obey the rules of the road if they want to use them. Simple.

I had no idea of the cost per kilometre so I put 'nominal' rather than a senseless figure. Do you reckon for half a billion euros (just over 7000km) you could, at least theoretically, construct a network that would cover the entire country? Or even a scaled-down one for half that? That's about the price of one sports stadium and not an extravagant waste in my opinion.

I'm just basing what I'm saying on experience in countries where bicycles are actually considered a valid mode of transport as opposed to an inconvenience, and where the provision of amenities goes hand in hand with duty of care - you will get stopped and find for acting the bollocks at traffic lights, having no lights, cycling on the footpath etc. in Holland or Germany.

I'd prefer to have a discussion that doesn't automatically assume that any idea, if put into place, would be automatically screwed up by the government, even if their track record is abysmal, as it defeats the purpose of any kind of proposal.

gurramok

Reading that article reminded me of nearly been hit by a cyclist who broke a red light last week at a busy junction.
I had a green light and started off slowly from a stopped position as I was first in the queue to move off and just by luck I had seen from the corner of my eye to the right a female cyclist cruise through a red light and I jammed on the brakes and luckily the cyclist didnt collide with me. And to top it off, 2 gardai were crossing the road nearby and did nothing.

If the gardai won't enforce rules of the road, it encourages reckless behaviour by all road users.

stovelid

Deleted User wrote: »

What? Just because it has benefits for the riders doesn't negate the previous 2 points that you so studiously ignored.

To be fair, you have a decent point about the riding double-file on a narrow road, for example, country roads, but I've still seen it happen elsewhere. The road outside my house, for example, is wide enough squeeze by single cyclist without going on to the other side, but I've seen people riding in big enough file (and having a whale of a chat) to almost take up that side of the road. And this isn't a road that is dangerous, being a 50km zone.

This is without addressing the original points of flaunting traffic lights and other dangerous behavaiour.

Have to say though - I do admire the team effort from the cyclists. Do you send each other a bat-signal when cyclists are being dissed elsewhere on boards? It's like Mormons-on-wheels: a proper cavalry response.

Dean820

Why not ban him from cycling instead?

stovelid

Dean820 wrote: »

Why not ban him from cycling instead?

This would be the best thing, but I doubt it would be enforceable? I assumed (please correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of traffic offenses are not applicable to cyclists.

DirkVoodoo

stovelid wrote: »

Have to say though - I do admire the team effort from the cyclists. Do you send each other a bat-signal when cyclists are being dissed elsewhere on boards? It's like Mormons-on-wheels: a proper cavalry response.

Pretty much!

I don't think any one cyclist can be used as a generalisation for the masses any more than you can do the same for drivers/pedestrians. There are bad apples, people who don't give a crap or worry about the consequences.

If you go over to the cycling forum (after giving the secret handshake and showing them your planeteer ring) you will see that when any of these threads about light breaking, etc. pop up there are a minority who admit to doing it freely.

DirkVoodoo

pickarooney wrote: »

I had no idea of the cost per kilometre so I put 'nominal' rather than a senseless figure. Do you reckon for half a billion euros (just over 7000km) you could, at least theoretically, construct a network that would cover the entire country? Or even a scaled-down one for half that? That's about the price of one sports stadium and not an extravagant waste in my opinion.

I'm just basing what I'm saying on experience in countries where bicycles are actually considered a valid mode of transport as opposed to an inconvenience, and where the provision of amenities goes hand in hand with duty of care - you will get stopped and find for acting the bollocks at traffic lights, having no lights, cycling on the footpath etc. in Holland or Germany.

I'd prefer to have a discussion that doesn't automatically assume that any idea, if put into place, would be automatically screwed up by the government, even if their track record is abysmal, as it defeats the purpose of any kind of proposal.

Half a billion euro? Divided up amongst how many cyclists? 35,000 people commute by bike in Dublin alone.

The problem is that you are addressing the problem the same way the government does. Cyclists are a nuisance, get them out of sight and out of mind. This doesn't work. Look at the attempts to overturn the mandatory cycle lane usage, most cycle lanes are either poorly designed or poorly maintained. Making bus lanes a shared bus/bike space is what most people would like to see, much like the painted on road cycle lane in Donnybrook. I'm sorry, but if you haven't used a cycle lane in Dublin and attempted, for example, to make a right turn or go around a roundabout, and found that it is almost impossible without getting off and walking, then any debate is pointless.

pickarooney

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Half a billion euro? Divided up amongst how many cyclists? 35,000 people commute by bike in Dublin alone.

Do you mean there are too many or too few cyclists in Ireland currently? The way you've phrased that seems to be a bit contradictory.

The problem is that you are addressing the problem the same way the government does. Cyclists are a nuisance, get them out of sight and out of mind.

Anything but. Cars, buses, taxis, pedestrians, are more of a nuisance to cyclists than cyclists are to vehicular traffic. Affording cyclists a designated travel area is not the same as treating them (us) as pariahs. In countries where there is proper provision for cyclists there is a higher level of mutual respect (the fact cyclists and motorists are by and large the exact same group of people notwithstanding) and traffic of all kinds benefits from it.

This doesn't work. Look at the attempts to overturn the mandatory cycle lane usage, most cycle lanes are either poorly designed or poorly maintained.

This is, I think, what's called begging the question. Are you saying that we shouldn't invest money into properly constructing and maintaining cycle paths because most cycle paths are improperly constructed and maintained? If so, do you see how that's both counter-productive and actively contributing to the problems of short-sighted commuter planning?

Making bus lanes a shared bus/bike space is what most people would like to see, much like the painted on road cycle lane in Donnybrook.

Maybe you have good reason to speak for the majority and perhaps this is the case. Personally I hate sharing a cycle lane with buses and taxis as the potential for blind-spot collisions is increased.

I'm sorry, but if you haven't used a cycle lane in Dublin and attempted, for example, to make a right turn or go around a roundabout, and found that it is almost impossible without getting off and walking, then any debate is pointless.

If you want to dismiss someone's point of view outright because of a traffic manoevre he may or may not have attempted then clearly yes, any debate is pointless.

phill106

alwaysadub wrote: »

Er...he went through her windscreen,i'd call that squashed!

Yeah,wonder did he look like that before he went through the windscreen too:pac:

Had already highlighted that quote too, you beat me!
Yes you did get squashed!

DirkVoodoo

pickarooney wrote: »

Do you mean there are too many or too few cyclists in Ireland currently? The way you've phrased that seems to be a bit contradictory.


Anything but. Cars, buses, taxis, pedestrians, are more of a nuisance to cyclists than cyclists are to vehicular traffic. Affording cyclists a designated travel area is not the same as treating them (us) as pariahs. In countries where there is proper provision for cyclists there is a higher level of mutual respect (the fact cyclists and motorists are by and large the exact same group of people notwithstanding) and traffic of all kinds benefits from it.


This is, I think, what's called begging the question. Are you saying that we shouldn't invest money into properly constructing and maintaining cycle paths because most cycle paths are improperly constructed and maintained? If so, do you see how that's both counter-productive and actively contributing to the problems of short-sighted commuter planning?


Maybe you have good reason to speak for the majority and perhaps this is the case. Personally I hate sharing a cycle lane with buses and taxis as the potential for blind-spot collisions is increased.


If you want to dismiss someone's point of view outright because of a traffic manoevre he may or may not have attempted then clearly yes, any debate is pointless.

Too few, clearly. There are 35,000 cyclists in Dublin and about 690km of cycle path/lane. If that 70,000 euro per km figure is accurate as an average for both on road and off road cycle lane infrastructure installation (not maintenance), which is probably generous considering you want what would probably rank among the best in the world with a completely separate cycling network with minimal road traffic interaction (how would I get home?) then the cost per commuter in Dublin would be 690 euro. Seeing as the majority of commuters do not spend this on their bikes, even with the cycle to work scheme, you would remove a large chunk of the 35,000 cyclists. Ah, a vicious circle is forming! Cycling is now prohibitively expensive because cyclists can't afford the "cyclist tax" to fund the new road network.

Blind spot collision? Are you passing around the inside of buses and taxis? The whole point is that you are perfectly visible. You are interacting with traffic. I would guess that not many collisions happen on that stretch of on road cycle lane in Donnybrook between buses/taxis and bikes. There are no blind spots when you are in plain view. Putting people on off road cycle paths creates blind spots. I have had cars drive up the bus lane on the N11 and turn left across my path as they pull into the Esso station because they don't look to see what is there. If I were on the bus lane, they would know because I would be apart of traffic.

I'm all for cycling facilities that work. putting segregated cycle lanes in the city doesn't work, it's been shown not to work.

If you have never made a right turn on a bike then yes, I am clearly wasting my time and you don't really seem to have an informed opinion on cycling infrastructure. It's all well and good cycling in straight lines up and down the seafront on a Sunday afternoon, but cycling through the city as a commuter requires nothing more than mutual respect between other road users.

magotch07

serves him right for being a pig

CramCycle

Dean820 wrote: »

Why not ban him from cycling instead?

stovelid wrote: »

This would be the best thing, but I doubt it would be enforceable? I assumed (please correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of traffic offenses are not applicable to cyclists.

I think the problem was the lack of severity of the sentence, since he wasn't driving anyway. A few months community service might have been the trick, maybe sweeping cycling paths? or bring him to schools with a Garda and get him to give a presentation on obeying the ROTR, if you don't you will end up like him. I think either would be a fair and apt punishment.

BraziliaNZ

What's with all the sweeping attacks on his appearance? If this was a woman we were talking about, the thread would have been closed ages ago

niceonetom

This was posted on the cycling forum, I feel the poster raised a valid point that bears repeating here, hope they don't mind me sharing it with a wider audience.

niceonetom wrote:

I obey traffic lights but...

...those in the anti-light-breaking wing have to admit that breaking the lights cannot simultaneously be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as they claim. It it were then every junction in Dublin would be knee deep in dead cyclists. Either it's not actually very dangerous or it doesn't happen... it clearly does happen, probably as often as not at many junctions, so we are forced to conclude that breaking the lights is, in reality, fairly safe. This is because most people do not want to die on the way to work. Who'd a thunk.

So why not do it?

Well, 'on principle', I suppose. I think that arguing that cyclists should follow the law re: lights for PR reasons and on the basis of 'fairness' is more intellectually honest and reasonable than immediately bringing safety/recklessness into it. That's a canard.

I think we should, on the whole, obey the law. But I also think the law should be augmented to allow cyclists a greater degree of legal freedom on the roads by, for example, allowing left turning cyclists to treat red lights as yield signs. More suitable rules, more stringently enforced would be better than the stringent rules completely unenforced that we have right now.

I see no value or truth in the assertion that all road users must obey identical rules regardless of mode of use: it's ideology unhindered by pragmatism. Many jurisdictions impose more stringent rules of HGVs than on other users (banned form certain areas, lower speed limits etc.), the same thinking should apply at the other end of the size spectrum.

easyeason3

I danced a jig of happiness when I saw this.
The stupid looking gimp, a year isn't long enough.

Run_to_da_hills

Technicall if someone can loose their license for breaking a traffic light on a pushbike a pedestrian could also loose his for J walkin or being drunk on a public road.

monument

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

No numbers for Ireland, but a good indicator as to the costs may be gleaned from this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254134575.html

That includes one bridge over a railway and the Royal Canal, another bridge over the Tolka River, and possibly another over the Grand Canal. Some boardwalk may be needed along a small stretch of the Grand Canal. It also includes pedestrian / cyclist traffic lights, the redesign of a number of junctions, extra bicycle parking stands along the route etc.

Harold Nervous Stratum

Harold Nervous Stratum wrote: »

Exceptionally ugly bastard warning!.

And not just because he's abusing the right to be ugly, but I'm delighted

About time someone tried to put a stop to this practice.

Jeeze, but he's one ugly dude too!.

Harold Nervous Stratum wrote: »

I wonder could we post his photo in the 'photos which shocked the world' thread!.

Are you trying to impress us with this crap ?

BraziliaNZ

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

What's with all the sweeping attacks on his appearance? If this was a woman we were talking about, the thread would have been closed ages ago

Very well said.

stovelid

RoverJames wrote: »

Are you trying to impress us with this crap ?

How are your injuries?

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

How are your injuries?

Very witty
I just find the thread in very very poor taste, it has brought AH to a new low I reckon. Which is an achievement considering the mindless sh1te that's in here.

AnonoBoy

RoverJames wrote: »

Very witty
I just find the thread in very very poor taste, it has brought AH to a new low I reckon. Which is an achievement considering the mindless sh1te that's in here.

Honestly there's been a lot worse sh*t that this in here.

Yup, they're being pretty insulting about him but you should see what they said about me in that thread.

Yeah, everyone involved knows the one I'm talking about. I haven't forgotten you know. :mad:

Wicklowrider

Stinicker wrote: »

, any driver who would driven this turn would be happy to drive around it much faster as its sight line allows you to see whats in front of /QUOTE]
You really are making this up as you go along aren't you?
1st its a blind turn, then when you are challenged as to why you entered a blind turn at speed you decide that you have perfect line of sight through it. Ok - lets assume you had line of sight. Then how did you have to make an emeregency stop? Your posts are full of inconsistencies and demonstrate a remarkable lack of knowledge of the road traffic act.
Did you pass your test?
I also note that you haven't answered my questions - specifically could you please address the point that if the road was as narrow as you state how could you safely pass a single cyclist/pedestrian/animal with oncoming traffic?