Irish Times letters - Most cyclists are malicious

kona

Jawgap wrote: »

Something doesn't add up here - he's living in Harmonstown and reading the Irish Times???? Surely those two things should be mutually exclusive.......

What exactley are you trying to say? You live in meath, Id live in harmondstown before that **** hole.

kincsem

justo wrote: »

They will deliberately go out of their way to obstruct other road users and it is clear that they will continue to do so for as long as they’re allowed to get away with it.

= They use the road.

kenmc

dited wrote: »

On the contrary, the delightful Mr Smith has been gracing the letters pages of the paper of record for quite some time. I found this particularly charming epistle penned back in 2001: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2001/0510/01051000105.html

...frustrating to bus drivers is that while most bus lanes have cycle tracks running beside them, cyclists nakedly (and illegally) refuse to use them. ......

Where???? I can't say I've EVER seen a naked cyclist, least not in real life anyway.

HxGH

Some (not all) cyclists are nuisances, as are some drivers on the roads today.

I don't see a point in regs on bikes myself.

It will just give something else for the government to tax.

dayshah

kenmc wrote: »

Where???? I can't say I've EVER seen a naked cyclist, least not in real life anyway.

That could be ouch. Very ouch.

Jawgap

kona wrote: »

What exactley are you trying to say? You live in meath, Id live in harmondstown before that **** hole.

Absolutely - I'd live in Harmonstown too - except it's full of Irish Times reading, cyclist hating bus drivers - I'd never get to the end of the road on my bike.

I'm in Meath out of necessity not choice and to borrow a phrase from that great Meath-man, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington....

"Just because one lives in a sty, it does not make one a pig........":)

Anyway, I look on it as living in Dublin 27.

christeb

kona wrote: »

What exactley are you trying to say? You live in meath, Id live in harmondstown before that **** hole.

There's no "d" in Harmo

Jawgap

Harmonstwon me b****x!!!

That area was always Edenmore - somewhere along the way it got changed Harmonstown when the local yokels realised they couldn't get away with Raheny and didn't want to use Coolock or Killester - let's face it, who would?

Undercover Elephant

Jawgap wrote: »

That area was always Edenmore - somewhere along the way it got changed Harmonstown when the local yokels realised they couldn't get away with Raheny and didn't want to use Coolock or Killester - let's face it, who would?

I think Killester has been abolished. We prefer the term "Clontarf Borders".

Cookie_Monster

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I think Killester has been abolished.

Killiney North these days isn't it?

thebullkf

tunney wrote: »

Like the speeders, drink drivers, red light jumpers, mobile phone using, members of the motoring community?

all those people can be identified,fined (if enforced)

too many cyclists breaking red lights imo.
i know cars do it (though mainly when queueing to turn)
the majority of cyclists do it.

the minority of motorists do it.

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

all those people can be identified,fined (if enforced)

too many cyclists breaking red lights imo.
i know cars do it (though mainly when queueing to turn)
the majority of cyclists do it.

the minority of motorists do it.

Evidence, data?

From my own spins I would say this is not true - some cyclists break red lights when the lights in question are pedestrian lights or they are turning left. Not nearly as many motorists do.

Although while stopped at the junction of Gardiner Street and Talbot Street this morning, 4 DB'ers broke the lights out of 6 cyclists at the lights. They crossed the junction rather than turned at it.

manwithaplan

I live in Killester. It's hard to deny when you can hear the announcements from the Dart station in your front garden. Killester village still exists but the locals would have you believe that Clontarf starts at the back wall of the Beachcomber.

thebullkf

Cabaal wrote: »

Can't be hard to track him down, just how many "bendy" buses exist in Dublin?

why would you want to

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

Evidence, data?

i get the impression that if i were to provide stats you'd disagree anyway.

From my own spins I would say this is not true - some cyclists break red lights when the lights in question are pedestrian lights or they are turning left. Not nearly as many motorists do.

Although while stopped at the junction of Gardiner Street and Talbot Street this morning, 4 DB'ers broke the lights out of 6 cyclists at the lights. They crossed the junction rather than turned at it.

imo

i'm a cyclist myself.. and a motorist.

every day i see more than one cyclist breaking the lights.
not true for motorists.

every evening i see more than one cyclist without lights/Hi-Vis.

not true for motorists.


seriously folks. take a step back - anyone can cycle a bike.

Malari

thebullkf wrote: »

every day i see more than one cyclist breaking the lights.
not true for motorists.

I think the way it happens is different.

I see cyclists going through lights at junctions when most of the traffic has passed through, instead of waiting for their light to turn green.

I see motorists breaking lights by driving through as the lights turn amber and then red, and then 5 seconds after red because they think they can make it safely if the lights in the other direction haven't turned green yet.

seamus

thebullkf wrote: »

every day i see more than one cyclist breaking the lights.
not true for motorists.

Well I disagree with that. Every single day I see numerous cars drive through lights when they've been red for about a second. I see them constantly driving through amber lights (which, consequently, mean stop) or breaking a red light because they want to turn right and get "ahead" of the oncoming traffic.

Stand at the Rathmines or Harold's Cross bridges over the canal for ten minutes and you'll see about 5 vehicles doing this every time the lights change.

The nature of how cyclists and motorists break lights is different, as Malari points out, but they all do it.

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

i get the impression that if i were to provide stats you'd disagree anyway.

Well, first thanks for pre-judging the issue and second I might disagree with the stats depending on the source or I might not.

Anecdotally, my experience is that most cyclists do not jump the lights, but I commute on some fairly major roads so that probably moderates the behaviour I see.

On some routes and at some junctions / traffic lights, the situation may be completely different, but if your assertion is that the majority break the lights then I think it's reasonable to ask if there is any data to back that statement up or is it just an opinion?

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, first thanks for pre-judging the issue and second I might disagree with the stats depending on the source or I might not.

Anecdotally, my experience is that most cyclists do not jump the lights, but I commute on some fairly major roads so that probably moderates the behaviour I see.

On some routes and at some junctions / traffic lights, the situation may be completely different, but if your assertion is that the majority break the lights then I think it's reasonable to ask if there is any data to back that statement up or is it just an opinion?

are you actually reading my posts.

Idleater

thebullkf wrote: »

are you actually reading my posts.

I stopped a car breaking a light this morning on the way to work. Despite the fact that he was driving in the buslane, he still wanted me to go through an orange and then red and gave an enormous beep to signify his disgust that I didn't go through the lights.
:rolleyes:

thebullkf

seamus wrote: »

Well I disagree with that. Every single day I see numerous cars drive through lights when they've been red for about a second. I see them constantly driving through amber lights (which, consequently, mean stop) or breaking a red light because they want to turn right and get "ahead" of the oncoming traffic.

Stand at the Rathmines or Harold's Cross bridges over the canal for ten minutes and you'll see about 5 vehicles doing this every time the lights change.

The nature of how cyclists and motorists break lights is different, as Malari points out, but they all do it.

no it doesn't. stop if its safe to do so.

i agree motorists also do it. but its a bit differrent when you haven't cycled for a while and as a motorist you notice it more.

on a bikei have to be honest i never really noticed it.

do you drive ?

i mean are most people here primatrily using cycling as the main mode of transport?

it can sometimes be a good thing to take a step back and actually wtch.
i mean one of the worst culprits is pearse st and its intersections...... non stop cyclists breaking lights,on footpath etc.

thebullkf

Idleater wrote: »

I stopped a car breaking a light this morning on the way to work. Despite the fact that he was driving in the buslane, he still wanted me to go through an orange and then red and gave an enormous beep to signify his disgust that I didn't go through the lights.
:rolleyes:

so?

whats that got to do with my comment about reading my posts?

i even underlined imo in my second reply when he missed it the first time.

were you in the buslane too?....or was he trying to merge?..where was this

helm09

The majority of cyclist do not follow the rules of the road, this is plainly obvious, just driving up by the sugar loaf on a Sunday and you can see this for yourselves, they all cycle in the middle of the road, side by side, even though roads are narrow and dangerous.

droidus

They're entitled to cycle two abreast, and the reason they cycle in the middle of 'narrow and dangerous' roads is to stop cretinous motorists dangerously overtaking them.

Captain Havoc

If you want a pop at the motorists, there's a very small minority who take a roundabout correctly. I'd say I see about one car a week who indicates and manouvres correctly on a roundabout.

thebullkf

droidus wrote: »

They're entitled to cycle two abreast,

as long as its sdafe to do so,and the road permits.

and the reason they cycle in the middle of 'narrow and dangerous' roads is to stop cretinous motorists dangerously overtaking them.

sums up your attitude in one word. well done.

thebullkf

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If you want a pop at the motorists, there's a very small minority who take a roundabout correctly. I'd say I see about one car a week who indicates and manouvres correctly on a roundabout.

agree comletely, reform is needed. but i think the majority do it out of ignorance.

whereas in reply to the OP. every cyclist knows RED=STOP.
therein lies the difference.

Idleater

thebullkf wrote: »

so?

whats that got to do with my comment about reading my posts?

i even underlined imo in my second reply when he missed it the first time.

were you in the buslane too?....or was he trying to merge?..where was this

Apologies for quoting you, I actually meant to just post on its own.

As it happens I pre-empted your following post
for example :

i agree motorists also do it.

and

it can sometimes be a good thing to take a step back and actually wtch.
i mean one of the worst culprits is pearse st and its intersections...... non stop cyclists breaking lights,on footpath etc.

Getting on to your current questions, the buslane that goes from clonsilla to blanchardstown centre, there is a junction with lights. Traffic was backed up from the Town centre roundabout to the lights, and from the lights to clonsilla. I was in the buslane (which has those illegal signs) and coming to a stop at the lights. Before the lights there is about 20m of "left turn" lane, but the car in question had obviously sped up a significant portion of the buslane to "make" the lights.

I began to ease up when the orange light came on when I just about entered the left turn zone. He obviously wanted me to continue straight, which I didn't want to do because the filter for those that want to turn right (from the centre) go next and they are already in the junction.

Does that clarify things somewhat?

To be honest it is just one incident, and there are numerous others that you can cite (eg pearse st) but what I mean to point out is, that there are obviously idiot motorists that want to assume that cyclists either shouldn't be there or should break the rules in order to allow them to do likewise.

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

are you actually reading my posts.

Actually I am.

At post #62 you stated "the majority of cyclists do it." as in break red lights.

I asked if you had any evidence to validate the statement before you suggested that if you were to provide stats I'd disagree with them anyway - only then did you parse your remark to state it was an opinion.

So I'll take it that you have no evidence, stats or data to back up your original characterisation. You could have just said you didn't have anything to back your argument up at the start.;)

seamus

thebullkf wrote: »

no it doesn't. stop if its safe to do so.

It actually means "Stop unless it is unsafe to do so". It's not an optional stop, it's a mandatory stop unless there are extenuating circumstances. It's a common mistake that people make, "I only have to stop if I don't have to jam on". An amber should always be treated like a red light, those three guys who speed up to go through the lights while they're amber are breaking the law.

i agree motorists also do it. but its a bit differrent when you haven't cycled for a while and as a motorist you notice it more.

Have to disagree there. As a motorist, I notice bikes breaking red lights, but I see less cars breaking red lights. On a bike you have better visibility of everything, and the fact that you get to go to the top of every traffic queue means that I see loads of vehicles breaking the lights in addition to the cyclists.

i mean are most people here primatrily using cycling as the main mode of transport?

There was a poll recently enough which found that 80% of the people on this forum use a car on a regular basis. Very few people use a bicycle as their main mode of transport because we have pets and kids and shopping and hangovers and the like

whereas in reply to the OP. every cyclist knows RED=STOP.
therein lies the difference.

Bizarrely and unfortunately this is not the case. A significant number of people (drivers and cyclists alike) are under the impression that cyclists are permitted to ignore red lights and go if there's no traffic coming. I've had people actually say to me, "Ah yeah sure you're grand on the bike cos you don't have to stop at lights and stuff".

droidus

thebullkf wrote: »

as long as its sdafe to do so,and the road permits.

sums up your attitude in one word. well done.

What the hell are you on about? what is my 'attitude' exactly?

Motorists who try and overtake cyclists on 'dangerous and narrow roads', are, by definition, cretins. Cyclists should not pull in to allow motorists to pass on these roads unless it is safe for both the motorists and the cyclist, otherwise they risk been pushed not a a hedge or a ditch, or hit by the wing mirror of a car that overtakes too close and at high speed.

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually I am.

At post #62 you stated "the majority of cyclists do it." as in break red lights.

post 62-

all those people can be identified,fined (if enforced)

too many cyclists breaking red lights imo.
i know cars do it (though mainly when queueing to turn)
the majority of cyclists do it.

the minority of motorists do it.

see? ^^

I asked if you had any evidence to validate the statement before you suggested that if you were to provide stats I'd disagree with them anyway - only then did you parse your remark to state it was an opinion.

no,it was in my post above, also in post 66

imo

i'm a cyclist myself.. and a motorist.

every day i see more than one cyclist breaking the lights.
not true for motorists.

every evening i see more than one cyclist without lights/Hi-Vis.

not true for motorists.


seriously folks. take a step back - anyone can cycle a bike.

imo

i'm a cyclist myself.. and a motorist.

every day i see more than one cyclist breaking the lights.
not true for motorists.

every evening i see more than one cyclist without lights/Hi-Vis.

not true for motorists.

hope this clarifies things

Captain Havoc

thebullkf wrote: »

agree comletely, reform is needed. but i think the majority do it out of ignorance.

Well ignorance got me knocked down at a roundabout last year and carolin_ie also got knocked down at a roundabout. Ignorance is no excuse.

Lumen

thebullkf

Captain Havoc wrote: »

thebullkf wrote: »

agree comletely, reform is needed. but i think the majority do it out of ignorance.

Well ignorance got me knocked down at a roundabout last year and carolin_ie also got knocked down at a roundabout. Ignorance is no excuse.

it is when you're handed a licence without sitting a competencey test.

do you drive?

Captain Havoc

thebullkf wrote: »

Captain Havoc wrote: »

thebullkf wrote: »

agree comletely, reform is needed. but i think the majority do it out of ignorance.


it is when you're handed a licence without sitting a competencey test.

do you drive?

yes

Idleater

Captain Havoc wrote: »

yes

Says he with pride

carthoris

thebullkf wrote: »

every evening i see more than one cyclist without lights/Hi-Vis.

not true for motorists.

I have never seen a motorist with Hi-Vis

But I have seen a lot of motorists with missing lights and occasionally lights turned off.

The number of cyclists with no lights is frustrating but it doesn't seem to be as bad as it used to be these days.

seriously folks. take a step back - anyone can cycle a bike.

yes they can. Anyone can walk on the road ?

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

hope this clarifies things

It does, thanks.

Although 30 seconds on Google would've given you this

This Australian study (peer reviewed and everything) found the infringement rate to be of the order of 10% to 12%. Hardly a majority.

ThisRegard

I see we got a new Friday pet, was our old one sent to a 'farm' ?

Harrybelafonte

Every time I read one of these threads my brain cells start offing themselves at a horrible rate, and my heart sinks to a wet cornflake state somewhere in my bowels. Now on top of that people on the DNS are reading The Irish Times???? At least The Guardian is still hard to find over here.

CramCycle

thebullkf wrote: »

too many cyclists breaking red lights imo.
i know cars do it (though mainly when queueing to turn)
the majority of cyclists do it.

After IMO, you have a full stop. This implies that you believe too many cyclists break red lights as mentioned in the sentence, it also implies you think a lesser number of cyclists breaking the lights would be acceptable.

Then on the next line you state that you know cars do it and you state in the following lines that the majority of cyclists do it.

It's easy to see how people might have thought you believed it to be fact rather than your opinion.

Thank god it's Friday

poochiem

Jawgap wrote: »

It does, thanks.

Although 30 seconds on Google would've given you this

This Australian study (peer reviewed and everything) found the infringement rate to be of the order of 10% to 12%. Hardly a majority.

that's a massive majority for the average Daily Mail reader.

I saw at least three bikes break red lights today, along the canal. When I say break lights it's usually that they set off before the red has turned green, although the cross traffic has already stopped but it's still dangerous as there are often cars breaking lights the other way. Similarly I saw two cars break lights near donnybrook, one speeded up dramatically to just break reds on a ped crossing and the other turned left on a red at donnybrook church and nearly squashed me into a van coming behind. So thats 3 v 2....quite clearly a majority. move on. ban them all.

CramCycle

poochiem wrote: »

Similarly I saw two cars break lights near donnybrook, one speeded up dramatically to just break reds on a ped crossing and the other turned left on a red at donnybrook church and nearly squashed me into a van coming behind. So thats 3 v 2....quite clearly a majority. move on. ban them all.

That junction at Donnybrook is insane for the amount of people breaking lights, at the times I pass by it, it's usually 10cars vs 1 cyclists during rush hour for every light rotation and at night times it's about 5 cars vs. 0 or 1 cyclists, at least twice in the past month I have seen cars run the red light right in front of a squad car.

It's not a problem with cyclists or motorists or pedestrians. It is a problem with morons, they are in all walks of life, simple as.

bikerjohn

djk1000 wrote: »

there is a minority of idiot cyclists that give you all a bad reputation amongst pedestrians and motorists, would you not be onboard with something that weeds them out?

its not a minority, its the majority of cyclists that dont give a rats

Beasty

bikerjohn wrote: »

its not a minority, its the majority of cyclists that dont give a rats

If that's the sum total of your contribution to the debate, I would suggest you stay off this thread, as another post like that and I will ban you for trolling

Beasty

thebullkf

seamus wrote: »

It actually means "Stop unless it is unsafe to do so". It's not an optional stop, it's a mandatory stop unless there are extenuating circumstances.

word it whatever way you will-stop only if its safe is the same as stop unless it is unsafe. its not a mandatory stop. red=mandatory.

It's a common mistake that people make, "I only have to stop if I don't have to jam on"

agree.

There was a poll recently enough which found that 80% of the people on this forum use a car on a regular basis. Very few people use a bicycle as their main mode of transport because we have pets and kids and shopping and hangovers and the like

fair point- but if you drive for a living re taxi driver/bus driver/courier
then you would see it more often.
i am neither-however i used to work outdoors in town/citywide on traffic lights.
believe me the majority of light breakers are cyclists.
a taxi driver friend concurred .

Bizarrely and unfortunately this is not the case. A significant number of people (drivers and cyclists alike) are under the impression that cyclists are permitted to ignore red lights and go if there's no traffic coming.

never heard of that,don''t know anybody who as either.

thebullkf

CramCycle wrote: »

After IMO, you have a full stop. This implies that you believe too many cyclists break red lights as mentioned in the sentence, it also implies you think a lesser number of cyclists breaking the lights would be acceptable.

Then on the next line you state that you know cars do it and you state in the following lines that the majority of cyclists do it.

It's easy to see how people might have thought you believed it to be fact rather than your opinion.

yes the majority of cyclists do it. the majority i've seen.
i hazard a guess i've seen more than most peope.

Thank god it's Friday

DirkVoodoo

thebullkf wrote: »

believe me the majority of light breakers are cyclists.
a taxi driver friend concurred .

Well, that's all the peer reviewed evidence I need, let's go publish our findings and hit some conferences!

No doubt a lot of cyclists break red lights, cars rarely do this unless it is (a) someone not paying attention or (b) the wee hours of the morning when the law seems to break down and taxi drivers choose which lights are stupid.

thebullkf

.

yes they can. Anyone can walk on the road ?

i meant any eejit can hop on a saddle- not any eejit can drive a car (legally)