Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

John_Rambo

Piercemeear wrote: »

I couldn't hold it against them if they walked all over the place.

Seems to be the way in Dublin. Pedestrians OWN the roads! Ever visit it with foreigners? They are amazed at the way people jaywalk with no regard to the lights. Cars simply slow down for them (well, I do) and let them cross. It's just the culture... You get the odd driver/cyclist throwing a wobbler, but usually it runs pretty smoothly, people, cars and bikes weaving about their way. I don't think the other Irish cities are the same, cars seem to rule in Cork and Galway anyway.

Piercemeear

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm makes sense to whom?

Makes sense to the road/junction designers. Makes sense as a jaywalking law in a city where pedestrian crossings are inadequate and the lack of a formal city-block structure make planning them even more difficult.

seamus

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ever visit it with foreigners? They are amazed at the way people jaywalk with no regard to the lights. Cars simply slow down for them (well, I do) and let them cross.

I guess it depends on just what kind of foreigners. I imagine Italians are more amazed that drivers slow down at all, rather than the fact that peds don't use the crossings. If you crossed outside of a zebra crossing in Rome, they'd run you down and keep going.

We have an interesting dynamic in this country. In places like the states, it's kind of accepted that the roads are where cars and other vehicles belong. Pedestrians usually respect this, and cross where it's safe.

Here in Ireland, we are different people depending on what mode of transport we're using, and in all cases, we feel that we have a right to be wherever we want to be.

As motorists, we drive through amber lights, park on footpaths and sneak down bus lanes. But we also go crazy about peds stepping off the kerb & crossing through traffic, cyclists breaking red lights and cycling the wrong way, and taxis pulling in wherever they like.

When we get out of the car and go for a walk, we walk on the road & cycle lanes, cross wherever the hell we like, expect taxis to pull in anywhere to accomodate us and at the same time complain about cyclists breaking red lights, cars running amber lights and parking on footpaths.

When we hop on our bikes, we bitch about peds crossing in front of us, cars breaking amber lights, parking in the cycle lane and using the bus lanes, taxis pulling in anywhere, but we'll happily ride through red lights, take illegal turns and cycle the wrong way where it suits us.

For some reason we expect a higher standard from everyone else than we apply to ourselves. This is partially why I don't break reds on the bike; so I can't be accused of hypocrasy. I find urban cycling a much more pleasant experience if you just obey the rules and let everyone else have their little rant and rave and bitch.

Yes, I could be accused of being a smug cyclist, but that's because I'm always in the right

Dermot Illogical

seamus wrote: »

I guess it depends on just what kind of foreigners. I imagine Italians are more amazed that drivers slow down at all, rather than the fact that peds don't use the crossings. If you crossed outside of a zebra crossing in Rome, they'd run you down and keep going.

Outside? Doesn't make any difference where you cross. An Italian driver will not stop at a pedestrian crossing (or anywhere for that matter) unless you give him/her no choice but to stop. You need to take your life in your hands and step out...

You've absolutely nailed it regarding Irish behaviour. That post should be kept ready to copy/paste into all future threads on this issue.

HivemindXX

John_Rambo wrote: »

Seems to be the way in Dublin. Pedestrians OWN the roads! Ever visit it with foreigners? They are amazed at the way people jaywalk with no regard to the lights.

Try visiting with Greeks/Italians/French, at least ones from the capitals. In Athens, Rome and Paris I've been perturbed to see how cars don't really stop unless there is actually someone in the way. So, when the ped light goes green for you if you wait for cars to stop before you cross you could be waiting a long time, they'll stop without complaint when you actually step out on to the road.

It seems that (sample size of 1) motorists in those cities ignore the rules but actually pay attention to what's going on around them. Kind of like a lot of cyclists seem to act in Dublin.

In Rome you can step out in front of traffic, they might go mental, but they'll see you and stop. In Dublin it seems that a lot of drivers just see traffic lights, if their light goes green they'll step on the accelerator and go back to texting without actually looking to see if there's anyone in the road.

Certainly it seems to work, although I don't know the pedestrian fatality numbers in those locations, the problem is when person A expects one thing to happen (traffic will stop if I step out) and person B expects another thing (green light means go, can go back to texting on my phone).

We seem to have a somewhat unfair situation where certain motorists want cyclists to obey every rule of the road but they choose to ignore any and all of them when it suits themselves.

For example(s)
+ Cyclists need to get off the footpath, but I can drive up on there to park when I need to run in to Spar 'for a second'.
+ Cyclists should never pass on the inside, but I can swoop in to the cycle lane or up on to the footpath to undertake someone who is turning right.
+ Cyclists should stop at red lights, but I can follow the standard, speed up on amber and the first three seconds of red don't count rule or feign confusion as to what filter arrows mean.

The main thing about the whole farcical issue that puzzles me is why more motorists don't go through red lights. As a group they clearly don't give a toss about the rules of the road per se, so why not? Presumably it's fear of being caught. Which means the anti-cyclist mentality is purely driven by jealousy.

seamus

HivemindXX wrote: »

Try visiting with Greeks/Italians/French, at least ones from the capitals. In Athens, Rome and Paris I've been perturbed to see how cars don't really stop unless there is actually someone in the way.
....
It seems that (sample size of 1) motorists in those cities ignore the rules but actually pay attention to what's going on around them. Kind of like a lot of cyclists seem to act in Dublin.

But to be fair, you've picked 3 countries with notably bad road safety records. Greece in particular is almost off the scale. Though to be fair, Italy is only worse than us since our recent huge drop in road deaths, the reason(s) for which is subject to lots of debate.

I think it does say something when the safest country in the EU - the UK - would have a similar enough attitude to us in terms of just crossing wherever and whenever. Perhaps there's a pseudo "shared space" thing going on where motorists expect at any time that a ped may step out in front of them, whereas in the likes of Italy they're only watching for peds at ped. crossings.

Presumably it's fear of being caught. Which means the anti-cyclist mentality is purely driven by jealousy.

I would say fear of being caught is probably half of it. I've recalled here the conversation I had with a young driver at a set of lights who couldn't understand why I'd stopped because, "you can't get points on your licence for it".
The other half would simply be the lemming effect. Drivers tend to stop at reds and speed up for ambers, for the same reason that cyclists tend to go through reds and cycle on the path; Because everyone else does it.

HivemindXX

seamus wrote: »

I think it does say something when the safest country in the EU - the UK - would have a similar enough attitude to us in terms of just crossing wherever and whenever. Perhaps there's a pseudo "shared space" thing going on where motorists expect at any time that a ped may step out in front of them, whereas in the likes of Italy they're only watching for peds at ped. crossings.

Based on my experience in Belfast the UK has a far better attitude towards the rules of the road than us. I've been in cars where the driver actually slowed down instead of speeding up when the next light goes amber. Pedestrians tend to wait for the green light before stepping in to the road. I didn't really notice cyclists one way or the other though.

mcmoustache

I have to agree with doozerie for the most part here although I can't argue with monument's stats. I cycle everywhere or I walk but I don't drive. My perception here is based solely on my experience as a cyclist living in the (Dublin) city centre.

For me the majority of cyclists give the rest of us a bad name. Again, this is about perception - it's hard to tell if a car is speeding when you're on a bike. On the other hand, it's really obvious when a cyclist thinks that red lights don't apply to them. From my experience, almost everyone on a BSO breaks lights. I rarely pull up to a red light to find a cyclist stopped there unless it's a busy cross-road but I always see cyclists passing me while I'm stopped. In fact, I once overtook the same gobshíte over 5 times while traveling from Gardiner St to Leeson St.

I also see salmon cyclists quite often. I don't mind them on roads so much but no-one wants to do the side-walk-shuffle at a combined speed of 40kph in a narrow cycle lane. As another person mentioned, dangerous undertaking is fairly common too.

These examples are anecdotal and I believe monument when he says that there is a comparable level of law-breaking in car drivers. The difference is that it's much more visible with cyclists. I see far more cyclists RLJing than cars (not counting the first second of a red). Also, due to the superior maneuverability of bikes, I see more of them doing silly things like undertaking before left turns, going the wrong way on one-way streets and cycling on footpaths. You can't do any of those things in a car so I see more bikes doing them.

tl;dr - Transgressions by motorists aren't so clearly visible whereas those of cyclists are very obvious. This leads to a perception that cyclists are a menace on the roads.

monument

monument wrote: »

Who here really thinks cyclists break the law more than others?

Anybody answering 'yes', how brainwashed are you?

You really think cyclists break more lights than pedestrians? Or do you honestly think it's only a tiny percent of motorists who speed, park on footpaths, block ped crossings, tailgate, don't indicate, have no care around cyclists or pedestrians, hold their phones when driving, block advance stop lines and cycle lanes?

Many motorists and cyclists do many of the same wrong things like not yielding for pedestrians at side roads or not slowing down when people cross away from traffic lights.

Don't get me wrong here, as both a cyclist and a pedestrian (often with a baby), I get pissed off with poor cyclling which endangers and it is a problem, but anybody who thinks cyclists are somehow byfar the worst lawbreakers needs to think again.

As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

Common sense needs to be used, if the road is busy and there is nobody on the footpath and you are clearly holding up traffic then go on the bloody path or if the road is narrow and you are holding up traffic then pull in and let them pass.

Many roads in this country were not made for cyclists and cars to be on and on these roads cars should take priority and cyclists take caution.

As for breaking the law, most do it but it can be done using common sense, I dont mind breaking the law because sometimes it is the safest thing to do. Going on an empty footpath is an obvious example as I said above.

ThisRegard

Seriously, you claim you've cycled 'racers' for years but don't see the issue on why you shouldn't cycle too close to the edge of the road, in fact you see this as a problem ? Something doesn't add up with your claim.

John_Rambo

seamus wrote: »

But we also go crazy about peds stepping off the kerb & crossing through traffic, cyclists breaking red lights and cycling the wrong way, and taxis pulling in wherever they like

I think you might be talking about a different Dublin than me!! I drive, cycle and walk around the city centre and I rarely see people go crazy considering the amount of jwalking, cycling wrong way, people pulling in and out of traffic... in fact you don't even hear horns being beeped that often.

Dublin is very relaxed for commuters.

The only time I see people going crazy at other road users is on the internet.

Hermy

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

...the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

The cyclists do no such thing. The driver of the car does this all by him/ herself.

Dermot Illogical

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

Drivers do not overcompensate. Many have a fear of the white line and will come within inches of a cyclist rather than cross it on an otherwise empty road. And cyclists who don't stay close to the curb are acting out of self-preservation. The part of the road nearest the curb is the part in worst condition and is very often dangerous. Staying beside the curb means the only direction available to avoid a hazard is out into the line of traffic.
You and your enormous sense of entitlement will just have to take second place to the safety of the cyclist in a lot of cases, so best just learn to live with it.

Bunnyhopper

The advice of cycling instructors is that staying too close to the kerb is more dangerous for the cyclist and tends to encourage drivers to pass when there really isn't room to do so safely. In my experience it is simply not the case that drivers always overcompensate to give cyclists plenty of room.

If overtaking puts you far too close to oncoming traffic then you shouldn't be overtaking. A little patience goes a long way. No-one is forcing you to overtake dangerously. In fact, that sort of dangerous overtaking is probably why cyclists tend to leave themselves a margin for error on their left. That road position also discourages dangerous overtakes, particularly on bends. The likelihood is that if drivers have a little patience they will get an opportunity to pass safely.

Cycling on the footpath is illegal.

A driver who can't drive safely around cyclists really shouldn't be driving. We share the roads. The only exceptions to that are motorways.

toby08

I have been cycling and driving cars ,trucks and riding motor cycles for 33 yrs. while not excusing it there will always be a level of bad road manners as i like to call it but it does appear to be getting worse.I will not cycle at night time now no matter how much lighting i have.
However there are a large amount of factors at play in our current road environment . Speed (of cars cycles motorcycles trucks) road conditions,eg the large amount of roundabouts with nearby ped crossings.before someone flys off the handle these are just a small amount of issues just to explain my point.
The only solution as I see apart from all road users being less uptight behind a wheel is for separation...I know that this was in the pipeline before the bubble burst we have beautiful cycle routes just dead ending,
I travel in excess of 70k miles a year and while not a cure all, i find that leaving 15 mins early works almost every time.everyone will make a mistake not everyone is perfect so if a cyclist or another driver cuts you off whats the big deal if you have plenty of time its only your own blood pressure that is effected the other person probably didnt even realize anything occurred .and remember that if you are late well then you are late driving at excessive speeds will not help an awful lot.
so whatever method you use safe road usage and remember when that kid wobbles on the bike it could be your kid some day, when that idiot pulls out in front of you it could be you rushing to a hospital, and when that o a p slows you down if your heart does not give out from all the tension it could be you some day . just be safe out there...

toby08

RT66 wrote: »

Drivers do not overcompensate. Many have a fear of the white line and will come within inches of a cyclist rather than cross it on an otherwise empty road. And cyclists who don't stay close to the curb are acting out of self-preservation. The part of the road nearest the curb is the part in worst condition and is very often dangerous. Staying beside the curb means the only direction available to avoid a hazard is out into the line of traffic.
You and your enormous sense of entitlement will just have to take second place to the safety of the cyclist in a lot of cases, so best just learn to live with it.

a quick note on these comments In my opinion it is not safe in most cases to pass a cyclist when there is on coming traffic !!!!!!!:mad

Dermot Illogical

toby08 wrote: »

a quick note on these comments In my opinion it is not safe in most cases to pass a cyclist when there is on coming traffic !!!!!!!:mad

I didn't say it was.

monument

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

Urban cycling is quite different than long distance cycling on a racer.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.

Cyclecraft -- based on the UK National Cycle Training Standard and endorsed by their Department of Transport -- states that road positioning is one primary things that urban cyclists should learn. It says to normally take up position away from the kerb and where needed "take the lane". Our Department of Transport also issued advice to cyclists last year to keep well away from the kerb.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

It's very clear from this that you do not cycle in urban areas. While many drivers are great, you have to allow for the poorer and poorest ones.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

Cyclists do not force motorists to do any such thing, if a motorist moves out "far too close" to imcomming traffic that's the choice and fault of the motorist alone. No road users -- including cyclists -- can blame others for their wrong doings.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

Common sense needs to be used, if the road is busy and there is nobody on the footpath and you are clearly holding up traffic then go on the bloody path or if the road is narrow and you are holding up traffic then pull in and let them pass.

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

Many roads in this country were not made for cyclists and cars to be on and on these roads cars should take priority and cyclists take caution.

One of the pillars of our road traffic laws is that all road uses have the right to use the road.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

As for breaking the law, most do it but it can be done using common sense, I dont mind breaking the law because sometimes it is the safest thing to do. Going on an empty footpath is an obvious example as I said above.

Bull****. Footpaths are for people walking, cyclists belong on cycle paths or on roads.

coolbeans

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

Common sense needs to be used, if the road is busy and there is nobody on the footpath and you are clearly holding up traffic then go on the bloody path or if the road is narrow and you are holding up traffic then pull in and let them pass.

Many roads in this country were not made for cyclists and cars to be on and on these roads cars should take priority and cyclists take caution.

As for breaking the law, most do it but it can be done using common sense, I dont mind breaking the law because sometimes it is the safest thing to do. Going on an empty footpath is an obvious example as I said above.

A very dismaying post betraying an almost wilful ignorance of road safety and the rights of other road users.

toby08

RT66 wrote: »

I didn't say it was.

sorry got quotes mixed up was a little annoyed by lack of consideration shown to other road users cyclists pedestrians etc this was the one i was replying to
"Originally Posted by Kenny Steep Advisor
As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

One of the pillars of our road traffic laws is that all road uses have the right to use the road.

Apologies if this is old news but this is not strictly true. My understanding of the legal situation is as follows. Motorists have no "right" to use any public roads. To my knowledge the only people who have a general right in common law to use public roads are people on foot, people on bicycles and people riding horses.

The use of motorised vehicles is constrained by the provisions of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and its successor acts. This sets out the principle that using a car, like owning a gun, is something that is done under a licence from the state. In Ireland, you don't have a "right" to use a car on a public road. In fact by default it is illegal unless you get a permit first.

du Maurier

Persons who cycle on the footpath rankles with me. I will concede, they generally seem to be the fair-weather cyclist looking for the route that suits them best, meandering in and out to get from A to B in whatever fashion they please.

I will throttle the next one that thinks they'll pass me through the smallest sliver of space on the path!:pac: (actually I won't really - I'll just grumble loudly and wait for the next cyclist to do the same)

Look whos talking

Ahh i think we should lay off the cyclists a bit ...at least there not contributing to greenhouse gases ..... there is a silver lining to everything ...

Hermy

Look whos talking wrote: »

Ahh i think we should lay off the cyclists a bit ...at least there not contributing to greenhouse gases ..... there is a silver lining to everything ...

Lumen wrote: »

When people say "hard to digest", they usually mean "makes me fart like a trooper".

:rolleyes:

Keep_Her_Lit

Hope things aren't going to escalate with all this motorist vs. cyclist hostility. I passed a lad cycling along the Grand Canal this morning and wondered if he'd been reading this thread. He was carrying an axe in his backpack.

Paco Rodriguez

doozerie wrote: »

Certainly the implications of being hit by a truck versus a bicycle are potentially very different, but as you say the penalties imposed by law already reflect that. The topic of this thread seems to mainly be about applying (what I consider to be) a meaningless ranking system though where some user group is nominated as being representative of the "worst offenders" end of the scale (or more specifically this thread is about putting cyclists somewhere on the scale other than the top, which means some other group presumably takes the top slot in their place). I don't think its a constructive angle on the whole debate about road safety.

At the very least, this kind of discussion risks going down the well-worn path of arguments along the lines of "as a cyclist I pose less risk than a car so I see nothing wrong with breaking a light. Cars kill, I simply hug!". Which is clearly a nonsense argument (for one thing, I suspect such people wouldn't submit to the tables been turned and having to stand still while a cyclist aimed their bike at them, and with good reason), but before you know it you'll have motorists ringing up Joe Duffy arguing with equal conviction that their breaking a red light is at least not as risky as an articulated lorry breaking a red light thereby making it acceptable. And once Joe is on the case we'll never hear the end of it!

Can we make the quoted text a sticky for people to read before posting threads on this argument?

doozerie

monument wrote:

The argument isn't that cyclists as a group don't break laws (they do), the argument is that cyclists are hardly different than others.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that in this thread. You are bothered by the poor perception of cyclists in the eyes of the public, that's fair enough so am I and so are many people I'd imagine, but in my view you'll not be able to change that view until people on bikes stop casually ignoring the rules of the road. In the meantime, whether you wish it or not, threads like this can pander to the martyr complex of those cyclists who already believe they have a right to make up their own rules since they deem pedestrians and motorists as some kind of hate-filled enemy.

Or, if you wait long enough then people will simply take it for granted that cyclists will break red lights, cycle the wrong way up one-way streets, etc., and it'll stop being such a notable event and perhaps cyclists won't be moaned about as much - much like many people already barely react when a motorist runs a red light, breaks the speed limit, etc. Personally I find that a very unappealing future though and I think that energy is better spent on discouraging things going that route rather than being spent on a "you smell worse than me" argument.

galwaycyclist

doozerie wrote: »

Or, if you wait long enough then people will simply take it for granted that cyclists will break red lights, cycle the wrong way up one-way streets, etc., and it'll stop being such a notable event and perhaps cyclists won't be moaned about as much - much like many people already barely react when a motorist runs a red light, breaks the speed limit, etc. Personally I find that a very unappealing future though and I think that energy is better spent on discouraging things going that route rather than being spent on a "you smell worse than me" argument.

This is partly the problem. Why is it illegal to cycle both ways on a one way street? In Brussels, provided the road meets defined conditions, the policy is that all one-way streets are two-way for cyclists by default. The German city of Bremen started making one-way streets two-way for cyclists over thrity years ago. German research indicates that in their experience making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a fall in the total number of accidents. To my knowledge, the issue of doing this for Irish cyclists was first raised in a Foras Forbartha report from 1979.

In Northern Europe, the Irish approach to traffic management seems uniquely, and pathologically, car obsessed. Some of the stuff Irish cyclists get attacked for is only illegal because Ireland is thirty or forty years behind the times in terms of traffic management policies.

In this situation. How is anyone supposed to get "buy in" from the wider cycling community on the idea of following "the rules"?

ednwireland

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In Northern Europe, the Irish approach to traffic management seems uniquely, and pathologically, car obsessed.

there's an approach to traffic management ? coulda fooled me

seems haphazard and piecemeal to me (which is where theproblem lies imo)

duckysauce

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Hope things aren't going to escalate with all this motorist vs. cyclist hostility. I passed a lad cycling along the Grand Canal this morning and wondered if he'd been reading this thread. He was carrying an axe in his backpack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14127823

monument

doozerie wrote: »

You are bothered by the poor perception of cyclists in the eyes of the public, that's fair enough so am I and so are many people I'd imagine, but in my view you'll not be able to change that view until people on bikes stop casually ignoring the rules of the road.

I would not be bothered if it was only the case that there was a poor perception of cyclists (such is justified). It's not that alone that bothers me, it's that people (including many cyclist) think that cyclists are adnomral in their law breaking.

Casually ignoring the rules of the road is a general problem among all road users.

doozerie wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing against that in this thread... ...rather than being spent on a "you smell worse than me" argument.

Somewhere, maybe just in the back of your mind, are you sure you don't have the mindset that cyclists are worse?

...Again, the argument isn't "you smell worse than me," it's that (as groups of road users) "we all smell as bad as each other."

doozerie wrote: »

In the meantime, whether you wish it or not, threads like this can pander to the martyr complex of those cyclists who already believe they have a right to make up their own rules since they deem pedestrians and motorists as some kind of hate-filled enemy.

I don't buy that argument. I don't get it at all.

How does this thread "pander to the martyr complex" of those cyclists?

doozerie

monument wrote: »

How does this thread "pander to the martyr complex" of those cyclists?

I've had some cyclists say to me, and I've read cyclist write, that they ignore rules of the road because motorists have it "in for them". No, I don't understand it either, it seems to be the stereotypical Irish mammy "poor me" attitude. Any discussion that seems to support the theory that cyclists are despised will likely feed their complex.

All of this is now moot though, as of this evening. On my way home I overtook another cyclist only to notice a third cyclist undertaking her at the same time. I held back to leave space for the under-taker to avoid colliding with a parked car ahead (for public enemy no.1 I'm actually fookin' sound, me). Further on he overtook another woman on a bike to swing an immediate left in front of her, despite not going fast enough to give her much space. All public enemy no.3 type stuff really, but that's not the real story.

At the next set of lights I had the opportunity, or misfortune, to, er, "appreciate" this guy. He was wearing an eclectic set of cycling kit. Most strikingly he was wearing a TT helmet, one aspiring to be the real deal, with a long pointy bit and everything. I looked for his tri-bars. None. I looked at his shoes - cycling shoes with no cleats whatsoever, he had toe clips on his pedals but no straps. Wha? I looked at his gearing - a triple chainset on the front. Fair enough. But his chain spanned the biggest chainring and biggest rear sprocket - the angles on the chain were something fierce. I'm not ashamed to say that I wept openly and had to be helped to the recovery position at the side of the road by some passers-by. That guy is now officially enemy no.1, an enemy even to cyclists, relegating the rest of us to enemy no.2 at most. Progress then, of sorts.

jaqian

I don't know of any cyclists who think that drivers are out to get them (most cyclists also drive). But being soft and squishy we are at more risk and have to be more vigilant of our neighbours on the road. The infrastructure here isn't good enough to try and integrate cycling lanes, most roads being too narrow but hey they'll try stick one in anyway forcing drivers to enter them. I'm probably going to be flamed for this but I break red lights quite a bit my argument being that you need that extra minute to get ahead of traffic, only by being seen can you be safe (especially in multi-lanes like D'Olier/Westmorland Street). There was a report done by an English cycling group showing that ppl who break the lights are actually safer than those who obey the rules but I cannot find the link.

I think this could be fixed by a change to the lights. In the UK traffic lights turn amber before turning red, if implemented here it could be used for cyclist to get a head start. Also having to stop at red lights where there are no pedestrians is just asking to be broken. There are too many lights a better system would be like Kilkenny where zebra crossing rule.

doozerie

jaqian wrote:

There was a report done by an English cycling group showing that ppl who break the lights are actually safer than those who obey the rules but I cannot find the link.

I really think you should find that link because on the face of it that sounds like a ridiculous claim.

There was some analysis done a while back of the statistics of cyclist deaths, in London I think. It concluded that most of the deaths were women cyclists hit by left-turning lorries. Those were the facts but at some point or other a conclusion was drawn from this by someone or other that this somehow clearly showed that the women concerned would have survived if they'd broken the red light and gotten past the lorry before it started to move and therefore breaking red lights is somehow a safer practice than respecting them. Perhaps this is the report, and I use the word "report" very loosely, that you are referring to? As logic goes that conclusion is the equivalent of saying that the majority of road accidents happen on the roads so the solution is for all road users to drive/ride on the footpath instead.

jaqian wrote:

In the UK traffic lights turn amber before turning red, if implemented here it could be used for cyclist to get a head start.

And what about the motorists that go on amber at the same time as the cyclists?

The way to avoid being squished by cars taking off at lights is to occupy the space of a car if the road is not wide enough to position yourself safely to the side of the cars. That, plus observation and awareness. They're not really out to get you, after all (right?), you just have to avoid putting yourself somewhere where under normal circumstances traffic can't see you.

seamus

jaqian wrote: »

There was a report done by an English cycling group showing that ppl who break the lights are actually safer than those who obey the rules but I cannot find the link.

You're probably referring to the various studies that have found that cyclists who rigidly obey the law are often more at risk than those who don't.

The results in this are kind of skewed because the only area where there was a significant difference was stopping at lights in front of HGVs. Those cyclists who stopped at the white line (either in front of or beside the HGV), were much more likely to be killed by the HGV than cyclists who moved well past the white line and into the HGV drivers' view.

The same studies also indicated that men are far safer cyclists than women, but only because women were more likely to stop in an HGV's blindspot (i.e. behind the white line) than men.

The obvious conclusion here is not that obeying the law is dangerous, but that the road infrastructure is dangerously designed. If the roads were designed correctly, then you should never have to break the law to reduce your risk. But cyclists (and pedestrians) must do this all the time.

When you removed the HGV/white line issue from the statistics, from what I remember they showed that cyclists who ignored the general rules of the road were far more likely to end up with serious injuries than those who didn't. Statistics on deaths are hard to compare because once you remove conflicts between cyclists and HGVs, the number of deaths is so low as to be useless for statistical comparison.

Dermot Illogical

duckysauce wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14127823

The comments on this page look familiar :rolleyes:

-Chris-

RT66 wrote: »

The comments on this page look familiar :rolleyes:

Jesus, I had to stop reading after a bit. Very frustrating...

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

You're probably referring to the various studies that have found that cyclists who rigidly obey the law are often more at risk than those who don't.

The results in this are kind of skewed because the only area where there was a significant difference was stopping at lights in front of HGVs. Those cyclists who stopped at the white line (either in front of or beside the HGV), were much more likely to be killed by the HGV than cyclists who moved well past the white line and into the HGV drivers' view.

The same studies also indicated that men are far safer cyclists than women, but only because women were more likely to stop in an HGV's blindspot (i.e. behind the white line) than men.

The obvious conclusion here is not that obeying the law is dangerous, but that the road infrastructure is dangerously designed. If the roads were designed correctly, then you should never have to break the law to reduce your risk. But cyclists (and pedestrians) must do this all the time.

It is not necessary to break the lights in order to avoid being squished by a left-turning HGV.

If you're not fast enough to out-accelerate on green you can just stay put until it's gone past, then follow.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

It is not necessary to break the lights in order to avoid being squished by a left-turning HGV.

If you're not fast enough to out-accelerate on green you can just stay put until it's gone past, then follow.

At the risk of getting pulled into Devil's advocacy I can see cases where it might be necessary. Bicycles do not have reverse gears. Suppose a HGV or Bus pulls up beside or behind you at a set of lights and it is unclear if the driver can see you, or even knows you are there? (Given that HGVs also have a blind spot in front of the cab.)

In that case the most obvious, fastest, route out of the danger area is to move forward, which may involve passing the near traffic signal and crossing the white line.

Waiting for a HGV to go past and then following appears to assume that it is not going to turn left. Unwise assumption I would say.

Dacelonid

The problem I have with cyclists is that they are on the road, but act like they are pedestrians.
Cyclists are supposed to be road users, and as such should follow the same rules of the road as motorists. It would be a lot safer from everyone concerned if cyclists behaved as motorists (or should I say, as motorists are supposed to, because lets face it, most motorists are morons).

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Waiting for a HGV to go past and then following appears to assume that it is not going to turn left. Unwise assumption I would say.

I can't think of any lights I go through on a regular basis where the stop line is close enough to the junction that an HGV could take me out at the stop line, but if that's the case just stop before the stop line.

It is not necessary to break red lights for safety reasons.

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At the risk of getting pulled into Devil's advocacy I can see cases where it might be necessary. Bicycles do not have reverse gears. Suppose a HGV or Bus pulls up beside or behind you at a set of lights and it is unclear if the driver can see you, or even knows you are there? (Given that HGVs also have a blind spot in front of the cab.)

In that case the most obvious, fastest, route out of the danger area is to move forward, which may involve passing the near traffic signal and crossing the white line.

Waiting for a HGV to go past and then following appears to assume that it is not going to turn left. Unwise assumption I would say.

This makes sense. If a HGV or bus pulls alongside and you can no longer see the driver, then I say you need to get back into their view or out of their way. This applies especially where the light sequence is long and your presence may be forgotten. Certainly I'd go out over the white line in those circumstances, but I wouldn't cross the junction.
The HGV doesn't need to be turning left to do damage either. Forgetting you're there and hugging the kerb is all it takes.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

It is not necessary to break the lights in order to avoid being squished by a left-turning HGV.

If you're not fast enough to out-accelerate on green you can just stay put until it's gone past, then follow.

I agree completely. But the problem is when people rigidly follow the law (and this is statistically more likely to be women), they also appear to assume that sticking to the law will keep them safe. So if a cycle lane goes up the left-hand side of a truck, they will follow it and stop at the line, with the belief that if it was unsafe, the cycle lane wouldn't be there. When they set off, they assume that the HGV driver is aware of them and can see them, and they're safe because they're following the law.

Same deal for stopping at a white line and having a large vehicle pull up behind you. Theoretically the driver should remember that you were there (or shouldn't pull up so close as to make you disappear), but if the light cycle is longer than 30 seconds, he could very easily forget about you, and just pull off without checking where you are.

I have always made a point of moving forward waaay past the white line in the above instance. Although I'm naturally going to accelerate quicker than a HGV, if I'm not paying attention to the lights when he pulls off, the extra distance means he can see me and I have time to get up on the pedals.

But no, there's never any need to proceed through a junction, and I don't think any report has ever said so.

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

The HGV doesn't need to be turning left to do damage either. Forgetting you're there and hugging the kerb is all it takes.

HGVs cannot move sideways like crabs.

If there is one to your right, and it's not actually turning left, there is absolutely no way it can hit you unless you cycle forward under its wheels.

It may seem like the HGV is moving left in your frame of reference, as you cycle along, but it isn't moving left on the road.

Rule #1 of safe road use is: always have an escape plan. Often the best escape plan is to come to a complete stop.

Decuc500

I'd like to vote 'No' but I still have the scars from being clattered by a cyclist last week when I was walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man.

seamus

Decuc500 wrote: »

I'd like to vote 'No' but I still have the scars from being clattered by a cyclist last week when I was walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man.

Did you not look before you crossed? The cyclist is wrong, of course, but I'm confused as to how you managed to get in his way in the first place?

manwithaplan

Decuc500 wrote: »

I'd like to vote 'No' but I still have the scars from being clattered by a cyclist last week when I was walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man.

Go on - vote 'No'. I'll get hit by a car to even things out.

(Seriously - sorry to hear that and hope you're OK)

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

Did you not look before you crossed? The cyclist is wrong, of course, but I'm confused as to how you managed to get in his way in the first place?

Please tell me you're joking.

Decuc500

seamus wrote: »

Did you not look before you crossed? The cyclist is wrong, of course, but I'm confused as to how you managed to get in his way in the first place?

Of course I looked both ways before crossing. I was about to step onto the footpath on the far side of the crossing when he came around the corner and hit me. There wasn't a thing I could do to avoid it. I'm not cyclist bashing here btw, just saying what happened!

Antomus Prime

First of all the answers in your poll are absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!

I dont think that every cyclist breaks the law, however from what I see on a daily basis is that a much higher percentage of cyclist dont stop at red lights, or dont signal when changing lanes or turning corners. Again this is just what I see, I'm not implying that all cyclist behave this way. It would be very naive to say that motorists dont break the law on a regular basis... If nothing more I would think that due to the higher risk factor of cycling a bike on a busy road, cyclist should take even more care to cycle safe and signal when appropriate, and obey the lights.

No I may be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the revenue generated from Motor/Road/Car Tax, as it's know, go towards the development and maintenance of roads?? Which cyclists use... If that is the case the case then there should be some sort of tax for cyclists. There is on everything else!!!