One year driving ban for breaking red light!..

Agent J

I'm a cyclist and i hate other cyclists who go straight through red lights, weave through city traffic etc.

General rule of thumb i follow on the road is that i am never going to win a fight with a 2 ton vehicle so dont start one.

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.

stovelid

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.

Wicklowrider

Stinicker wrote: »

Is he banned from Cycling now? As a motorist I really hate cyclists, 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.

I wish we could ban cycling in this country.

Failing to anticipate hazards?
Driving too fast for conditions?

" I came into a narrowish blind turn doing about 75km/h to 80km/h " repeat that in court and I think the judge might have something to say!
In another post you say " its a narrowish road with no hard shoulder " If thats true you had no chance of passing a single cyclist safely if a car was approaching in opposite direction - so what difference if they were 2 abreast. Experienced cyclists won't single out if its too dangerous for a car to pass.

What would hve happened if you came around corner and there was a tractor/horses/children?

Been driving for 28 years myself, (Cycling 35 years) I am no angel on the roads. But have yet, even in the best of weather and on the narrowest country road come close to hitting anything other than another car when it was being driven carelessly. You need to start anticipating conditions methinks...
Clowns ride bikes sometimes. They also drive apparently. Relax, take a bit more care and you might hang onto your licence.

MistyCheese

Although I did witness a car almost hit a cyclist last week. She was doing an illegal u-turn and came close enough to the cyclist that he was able to bang his fist on her car, which he did.

She was 100% in the wrong but what galled me was her expression as she drove off. She could have killed, or injured, someone - but was laughing about it.

mikom

WalterMitty wrote: »

He aint that ugly guys. Wouldnt get onto those ugly websites.

Why don't ya marry him so?

NuMarvel

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.

Well, this is what the Rules of the Road website has to say about cyclists on the left:

"Make sure you keep to the left. Always look behind and give the proper signal before moving off, changing lanes or making a turn."

So, looks to me that cyclists cycling two/three abreast aren't in full adherence of the RSA's guidance. (And before I'm jumped upon, I'm a cyclist AND a motorist AND a pedestrian, so I've no particular bias, other than towards anyone who endangers other road users.

yoshytoshy

Cycling abreast in numbers on country roads doesn't bother me ,I think it's safer for cyclists.

What annoys me is two mates cycling beside each other around dublin ,10 Foot abreast ,stupid cnuts.

Dermot Illogical

The Davestator wrote: »

This is a stupid ruling as if you did this and had no drivers licence, you couldnt get the same punishment which is totally crazy.

Of course you could. They dish out driving bans like confetti in the Children's Courts, to kids who are too young to have a licence. Like with this loon, it lays down a marker for when he does decide to drive. Then he'll get some juicy insurance quotes.
"Ya can't disqualify me, I don't have a licence" is no defence..

Wicklowrider

NuMarvel wrote: »

Well, this is what the Rules of the Road website has to say about cyclists on the left:

"Make sure you keep to the left. Always look behind and give the proper signal before moving off, changing lanes or making a turn."

So, looks to me that cyclists cycling two/three abreast aren't in full adherence of the RSA's guidance. (And before I'm jumped upon, I'm a cyclist AND a motorist AND a pedestrian, so I've no particular bias, other than towards anyone who endangers other road users.

I am 100% certain that RTA allows 2 abreast " provided they aren't holding up traffic" hence grey area. In some incidents large groups are easier for motorists to overtake when they are two abreast as its a shorter overtake. Don't hear motorists comment on the riders that do single out? Sometimes singling out is taken as an invitation to motorist to overtake on dangerous part of road. Motorists ranting about cyclists, cyclists ranting about motorists aren't doing themselves any credit.
I have been forced to drive a lot this summer in rural wickow ad haven't noticed tailbacks for any considerable time behind cyclists - where is all this hassle?

desertcircus

Hang on - you went into a blind turn at 75 kph, you nearly hit two cyclists who were using the road entirely legally and in accordance with the rules of the road, and they're the ones who should be banned?

Also: "Everyone knows that cyclists are the biggest danger to themselves and everyone else on the roads"? Total road fatalities caused by cyclists in Ireland: zero. Total number of road fatalities in Ireland last year: 241. Claiming that cyclists are the biggest danger on the roads is garbage, and any more than about ten seconds' consideration would have made that clear. I'm sick of being regarded as a law-ignoring menace by people who throw out accusations with no basis and think 70+ is the right speed for blind turns.

stovelid

Wicklowrider wrote: »

I am 100% certain that RTA allows 2 abreast " provided they aren't holding up traffic" hence grey area. In some incidents large groups are easier for motorists to overtake when they are two abreast as its a shorter overtake. Don't hear motorists comment on the riders that do single out? Sometimes singling out is taken as an invitation to motorist to overtake on dangerous part of road. Motorists ranting about cyclists, cyclists ranting about motorists aren't doing themselves any credit.
I have been forced to drive a lot this summer in rural wickow ad haven't noticed tailbacks for any considerable time behind cyclists - where is all this hassle?

I very regularly find myself in tailbacks behind 2-3 abreast 'Sunday cyclists', blithely chatting away and making no effort to let traffic stuck behind them out.

Nobody is denying that there are dicks on both sides. The key shouldn't be about criticising other people's lifestyle choices, just about showing courtesy to all road users and keeping things flowing as safely and smoothly as possible.

I hate the whataboutery that because idiot motorists causes deaths, it's OK for cyclists to obstruct and irritate other road users because they don't cause deaths. It's the kind of idealogical spite that poisons road relations.

I do think that if we can't have certain traffic offences for cyclists, we need some kind of law that punishes them for breaking lights or wilfully obstructing traffic though. Likewise, motorists should be stamped on from a large height for doing things like parking on cycling lanes or cutting in front of cyclists.

dermo88

I am surprised that a cyclist has an attitude on the roads at 38 years of age. It bears more similarity to my crazy high speed antics at 18 or 19 years of age, and I will openly admit I am not proud of it looking back.

Being roadwise means being aware of your own conduct, but also those of your surroundings.

At 21, I had an accident on Eden Quay, which was entirely my fault. There was no damage to the car or the bike....which was a miracle. I had mild concussion and was treated within 40 minutes, and was on my way home within 2 hours. The driver was upset, but I told him there and then that it was my fault, and asked that the Garda there bear witness to that.

My friends thought I was nuts to admit liability, but here was my view:

"I am alive"
"He is alive"
"Nothing is damaged, brakes came on in time, only I went over the handlebars"
"I looked left, forgot to look right, and accelerated at full pelt, I was a dumb fool"

But, what upset me most was this line, from my mates Dad, who I expected to have better standards:

"But you could have made a fortune on the insurance company"

My reply:

"I have two relatives who are ambulance chasers. I despise that conduct unless it is completely justified. Its not in this case"

"Karma is a bitch.....it can come back to haunt in 10 or 20 years time, and the interest payments are a bit expensive"

At a subsequent family event, one of the ambulance chasers (Aunt by marriage) criticised my stance. But I did'nt have to say anything. A smile and a knowing glance in front of all said a 1,000 words.

If a traffic light or belisha beacon is against a cyclist, don't cycle....dismount and walk the vehicle through, then remount. That qualifies as walking. That was the advice from a Garda. Its bending the law, not breaking it. They will turn a blind eye to jaywalking to an extent, but not breaking a light.

The guy sounds like an utter plank. He's very lucky not to have been more seriously hurt. I read somewhere about a study that found that unattractive people are more likely to recieve harsher penalties in court, I wonder if that had anything to do with the verdict?:D It's not like he's the only person on a bike to ever have gone through a red light and subsequently collided with another vehicle(I've seen it happen myself), yet it's the first time I've heard of this (rather bizarre) punishment being handed out.

EDIT: Just found a link to the study on another thread in AH, how fortuitous.

unknown13

Serves him right. Act like a muppet on a push bike and you will be punished somehow.

Gannicus

unknown13 wrote: »

Serves him right. Act like a muppet on a push bike and you will be punished somehow.

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. They take the piss because the insurance companies are too quick to pay out. I drove into work friday morning and got to a red light. Garda car sitting right beside now. 8 cyclists come to the lights and only 2 actually wait for the lights to go green. Garda did nothing and by law they are supposed to issue them with the same sort of penalty that anyone in a mechanically propelled vehicle may recieve.

Oh by the way I work in insurance.
If anyone does what your man did and you hit them you can actually take an action of tort against them for the damage to your car. So don't let it rest. Anything happens call the Garda straight away and get any witnesses to give them a statement when they arrive. Don't claim off your insurance it wasn't your fault. They're to quick to claim off you so make sure you claim off them and maybe then cyclists around might start to cop on

Dyr

I'm praying for the day when we pass a law that those c**ts on corpo rentabikes who use the path as their own personal motorway are declared fair game for pedestrians.

Outside Pearse street dart station, I saw one prize bollix in a business suit actually start tinkling the little rentabell on his rentabike at the large number of pedestrians on the path who were making his cycling impossible. Oh to be allowed by law to lamp these utter sh*tehawks

stovelid

Bambi wrote: »

I'm praying for the day when we pass a law that those c**ts on corpo rentabikes who use the path as their own personal motorway are declared fair game for pedestrians.

Outside Pearse street dart station, I saw one prize bollix in a business suit actually start tinkling the little rentabell on his rentabike at the large number of pedestrians on the path who were making his cycling impossible. Oh to be allowed by law to lamp these utter sh*tehawks

Clue:

Stealthily insert umbrella or stick in spokes.

Leave scene of crime quickly.

Stand around the corner laughing.

arybvtcw0eolkf

stovelid wrote: »

Clue:

Stealthily insert umbrella or stick in spokes.

Leave scene of crime quickly.

Stand around the corner laughing.

And record the faceplant for youtube!.

Stinicker

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Failing to anticipate hazards?
Driving too fast for conditions?

" I came into a narrowish blind turn doing about 75km/h to 80km/h " repeat that in court and I think the judge might have something to say!
In another post you say " its a narrowish road with no hard shoulder " If thats true you had no chance of passing a single cyclist safely if a car was approaching in opposite direction - so what difference if they were 2 abreast. Experienced cyclists won't single out if its too dangerous for a car to pass.

What would hve happened if you came around corner and there was a tractor/horses/children?

Been driving for 28 years myself, (Cycling 35 years) I am no angel on the roads. But have yet, even in the best of weather and on the narrowest country road come close to hitting anything other than another car when it was being driven carelessly. You need to start anticipating conditions methinks...
Clowns ride bikes sometimes. They also drive apparently. Relax, take a bit more care and you might hang onto your licence.

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.

Gannicus

Bambi wrote: »

I'm praying for the day when we pass a law that those c**ts on corpo rentabikes who use the path as their own personal motorway are declared fair game for pedestrians.

Outside Pearse street dart station, I saw one prize bollix in a business suit actually start tinkling the little rentabell on his rentabike at the large number of pedestrians on the path who were making his cycling impossible. Oh to be allowed by law to lamp these utter sh*tehawks

I think I'm in love.....

stovelid wrote: »

Clue:

Stealthily insert umbrella or stick in spokes.

Leave scene of crime quickly.

Stand around the corner laughing.

Pure genius. you looking for a partner in crime?:cool:

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.