In defence of cyclists

hatrickpatrick

steve9859 wrote: »

melodramatic much?!!!

Melodramatic when I've seen a man's dog being hit full force by a cyclist at a GREEN MAN on this junction which he had every right to be crossing just because the asshole believes red lights don't apply to him?

Melodramatic when I've almost been the victim of the same thing myself on an uncountable number of occasions over the last year?

If I can't safely cross the road at a green man, where the hell else am I supposed to cross it at?

Cheeky_gal

I am too nervous to take my bike out for fear of being knocked down by a car.

I see how mad my dad gets with cyclists and I'd be terrified a motorist would get like that with me.

I've no problem with cyclists btw.

However I remember one cyclist went flying by my dad's car and hit his wing mirror and my dad was fuming, we caught up with said cyclist at the traffic lights and my dad pulled down the window to confront him and the cyclist went mad saying "it's your own fault I hit your mirror as you didn't leave enough room", enough room I thought? There wasn't a cycle lane

fasttalkerchat

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

I am too nervous to take my bike out for fear of being knocked down by a car.

I see how mad my dad gets with cyclists and I'd be terrified a motorist would get like that with me.

I've no problem with cyclists btw.

However I remember one cyclist went flying by my dad's car and hit his wing mirror and my dad was fuming, we caught up with said cyclist at the traffic lights and my dad pulled down the window to confront him and the cyclist went mad saying "it's your own fault I hit your mirror as you didn't leave enough room", enough room I thought? There wasn't a cycle lane

I was wondering about this. Since cyclists are technically vehicles can they overtake on the inside legally?

Colmustard

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How would it makes life more dangerous for anyone if we start fining cyclists for breaking red lights and/or driving on the footpath?

If they're so addicted to breaking these laws that the only alternative is to take up driving, then fair enough - as I said, I feel far safer in the vicinity of cars on Dame Street than cyclists. I have never seen a car driving up onto the pavement at the George's Street junction in order to avoid having to slow down or stop, and I have rarely seen cars breaking these pedestrian lights.

Surely given the above it would be far safer for these people to be driving cars, if that would at least make them feel that the law actually applies to them?

They do fine cyclists for breaking the rules of the road and riding on footpaths. It is not uncommon. I can't excuse irresponsible cycling, there is a lot of it in this country, I myself quite hypocritically have also broke some traffic laws while cycling, something I would never do as a motorist.

I don't now because I had a near miss, which I will add would have been my fault. I should really know better from driving 29+ years. But I know why I did so on a bike. On a bike I kind of feel like a pedestrian and pedestrian in this country do not obey law. We are world famous for jaywalking.

rab!dmonkey

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

....
However I remember one cyclist went flying by my dad's car and hit his wing mirror and my dad was fuming, we caught up with said cyclist at the traffic lights and my dad pulled down the window to confront him and the cyclist went mad saying "it's your own fault I hit your mirror as you didn't leave enough room", enough room I thought? There wasn't a cycle lane

Without having seen the incident, this is only speculation, but it often happens that a queue of traffic forms, each car directly behind the other, leaving enough space for cyclists to pass on the inside. The odd motorist will line up further to the left, blocking cyclists. I consider this a little inconsiderate, but there's no obligation to provide room on the inside and it can be safer not to if the motorist is turning left especially in a large vehicle.
The Rules of the Road say

[Do not drive] so far to the left that you are driving on a cycle lane or blocking or endangering cyclists or pedestrians.

but this is merely a suggestion and not enforcable as far as I'm aware. The cyclist was probably at fault.

opti0nal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was wondering about this. Since cyclists are technically vehicles can they overtake on the inside legally?

Yes, in slow-moving traffic, it's explicitly permitted.

galwaycyclist

opti0nal wrote: »

Yes, in slow-moving traffic, it's explicitly permitted.

Uh no its illegal other than in the same circumstances that apply to motor vehicles. The last minister was talking about changing the law to make it legal for cyclists to pass on the left but it didn't happen before.the government fell.

hardCopy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How would it makes life more dangerous for anyone if we start fining cyclists for breaking red lights and/or driving on the footpath?

If they're so addicted to breaking these laws that the only alternative is to take up driving, then fair enough - as I said, I feel far safer in the vicinity of cars on Dame Street than cyclists. I have never seen a car driving up onto the pavement at the George's Street junction in order to avoid having to slow down or stop, and I have rarely seen cars breaking these pedestrian lights.

Surely given the above it would be far safer for these people to be driving cars, if that would at least make them feel that the law actually applies to them?

If you really want to see cars break the law, stand outside Sultan on George's Street at lunchtime. See how many cars give pedestrians right of way on a flashing green man.

People in this country are terrible at obeying traffic laws, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists. To try and say cyclists are worse than any other is complete nonsense.

dave1982

They're a blight on our roads, they ever hear of single file?

Assholes on bendy road going along next to each other chatting away taking up a full side of the road

hardCopy

dave1982 wrote: »

They're a blight on our roads, they ever hear of single file?

Assholes on bendy road going along next to each other chatting away taking up a full side of the road

Seriously, read the rest of the thread, come back when you learn to drive.

Korvanica

dave1982 wrote: »

They're a blight on our roads, they ever hear of single file?

Assholes on bendy road going along next to each other chatting away taking up a full side of the road

Read he goddam thread !

fasttalkerchat

opti0nal wrote: »

Yes, in slow-moving traffic, it's explicitly permitted.

So they're not breaking any law by trying to pass while you get out of a car/bus at the side of the road?

seamus

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

So they're not breaking any law by trying to pass while you get out of a car/bus at the side of the road?

If you're parked at the side of the road, then you're no longer traffic, so yes theoretically that's perfectly fine.

In reality if you have left enough space between your vehicle and the kerb for a cyclist to pass you while you're letting passengers out, then you're doing it wrong and you're putting your passengers and other road users in danger.

Opening the doors of a vehicle in traffic is a matter of strict liability so you will be at fault if your passenger opens the door on top of a cyclist.

Flandria

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Melodramatic when I've seen a man's dog being hit full force by a cyclist at a GREEN MAN on this junction which he had every right to be crossing just because the asshole believes red lights don't apply to him?

Melodramatic when I've almost been the victim of the same thing myself on an uncountable number of occasions over the last year?

If I can't safely cross the road at a green man, where the hell else am I supposed to cross it at?

Yes

fasttalkerchat

seamus wrote: »

If you're parked at the side of the road, then you're no longer traffic, so yes theoretically that's perfectly fine.

In reality if you have left enough space between your vehicle and the kerb for a cyclist to pass you, then you're doing it wrong and you're putting your passengers and other road users in danger.

Not when parked, just when you come to a stop to let a passenger get out. Or when a bus stops alongside parked cars. I've stepped off a bus and had to jump out of the way of a cyclist who didn't even have time to break.

Flandria

dave1982 wrote: »

They're a blight on our roads, they ever hear of single file?

Assholes on bendy road going along next to each other chatting away taking up a full side of the road

Pesky bendy roads - they are the real blight, they wear out headsets:mad:

hardCopy

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Not when parked, just when you come to a stop to let a passenger get out. Or when a bus stops alongside parked cars. I've stepped off a bus and had to jump out of the way of a cyclist who didn't even have time to break.

To be honest, that's partly the bus drivers fault and maybe the other drivers who parked in the bus stop. Bus stops have raised kerbs so that people don't have to step out into traffic.

You should always look before you exit a bus into traffic.

You should never let passengers out in traffic, "coming to a stop" is parking. You should never park in the middle of a lane.

fasttalkerchat

hardCopy wrote: »

"coming to a stop" is parking. You should never park in the middle of a lane.

Its not parking every time you come to a red light. Its just part of traffic. I agree with you its the pedestrians fault for not looking, I was just wondering was there a law that specifically allowed undertaking if you have fewer than 3 wheels.

hatrickpatrick

Flandria wrote: »

Yes

Fair enough. I have no idea whether the dog survived, he was thrown into the air by the bike and then hit again by it when he landed. Scumbag didn't even stop to see if he was ok.

rab!dmonkey

Flandria wrote: »

Pesky bendy roads - they are the real blight, they wear out headsets:mad:

Actually it's straight roads that do that. You get 'indexed' bearings when they wear in the same spot. I hope to see this reflected in NRA design document: no straight roads anywhere!

Colmustard

Just back from a nice long recreational cycle along the coast road and I have absolutely no complaints.

Ehh apart from the fresh wind, the wind doesn't give a fukc about cyclists. It was still a nice cycle.

seamus

In the "who would come off worse" debate, I'd just like to leave this here. (It's not gross or disturbing. Long video, but you really only need to see the first 15 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kqfTd0rAE

No, one case does not a proof make, but it's a perfect example of what some of us here are talking about in terms of what usually happens in an accident.

bluecode

No such thing as road tax, its motor emissons tax which cyclists of course don't have to pay due to the self propelling nature of bicycles.

Just had to correct this, it's a carbon tax, as they like to call it. Carbon as in Carbon Dioxide. So unless you breathe out pure oxygen you're contributing to global warming! Then there's the methane thing.

opti0nal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

So they're not breaking any law by trying to pass while you get out of a car/bus at the side of the road?

Did you overtake the cyclist, then stop in front to let passengers off? That's prohibited in the overtaking regulations.

Was it in a clearway where stopping is not permitted? That's not allowed either.

Passing on the inside of traffic is permitted, but there is still an onus on the cyclist to do so safely, doing the best he can to anticipate what might happen next. For example, if he's just been overtaken and the car then stops in front of him, even though the driver is already at fault.

opti0nal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was just wondering was there a law that specifically allowed undertaking if you have fewer than 3 wheels.

It's covered in SI 182/1997 and it applies to all traffic regardless of the number of wheels:

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
...
10 (5) A driver may only overtake on the left—

( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,

( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,

( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

JuliusCaesar

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So you're stopped at traffic lights in your car, in a line of traffic waiting for the lights to go green. Another car drives up outside the line of traffic waiting at the lights and cuts in at the front of the line. When the light goes green, he takes off slowly, and the cars in the line of traffic have to overtake him to make reasonable progress.

The line of cars then line up at the next set of traffic lights. Our special friend drives up outside the line of waiting traffic and cuts in at the front of the line. When the lights go green, he moves off slowly, and the cars in the line of traffic have to overtake him to make reasonable progress.

The line of cars then line up at the next set of traffic lights. Our special friend drives up outside the line of waiting traffic and cuts in at the front of the line. When the lights go green, he moves off slowly, and the cars in the line of traffic have to overtake him to make reasonable progress.

But the guy wasn't impeding you in any way - right?

He's a Bike, not a Car, and there was LOADS of ROOM to overtake. The car analogy only holds if you widen the road to about 10 car-widths. :rolleyes:

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

I think it's because cyclists are more likely to be enjoying themselves, whereas everyone else is cooped up in a metal box, stewing in their own rage.

Most cyclists, rab!dmonkey, it's true - but not SerialComplainer!

Zab

seamus wrote: »

In the "who would come off worse" debate, I'd just like to leave this here. (It's not gross or disturbing. Long video, but you really only need to see the first 15 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kqfTd0rAE

No, one case does not a proof make, but it's a perfect example of what some of us here are talking about in terms of what usually happens in an accident.

Oddly they're fining the cyclist according to this, for cycling on the road instead of the cycle path. Although perhaps that's not too surprising in a country that has sent 200,000 to prison for drunk cycling in the past 12 years.

Colmustard

bluecode wrote: »

Just had to correct this, it's a carbon tax, as they like to call it. Carbon as in Carbon Dioxide. So unless you breathe out pure oxygen you're contributing to global warming! Then there's the methane thing.

So are you saying pedestrians should also pay carbon tax.

Besides I hold my breath while I cycle.

Chinasea

Still think it is all a bit exaggerated that everywhere you look you see damn cyclist cycling on the paths.

I do, but only when I have to. The fact is that other then the token mis match of poorly maintained scanty cycle lanes we have there is absoutely no relatively safe capicity WHATSOEVER factored in on many of our existing roads to allow a cyclist to safely cycle.

Cars rule in Ireland. For f's sake you can even drive your car along many of our strands/beaches.

fasttalkerchat

opti0nal wrote: »

Did you overtake the cyclist, then stop in front to let passengers off? That's prohibited in the overtaking regulations.

Was it in a clearway where stopping is not permitted? That's not allowed either.

Passing on the inside of traffic is permitted, but there is still an onus on the cyclist to do so safely, doing the best he can to anticipate what might happen next. For example, if he's just been overtaken and the car then stops in front of him, even though the driver is already at fault.

Where a bus is stopped in the City Centre, Particularly on George Street. I was the first passenger to step off and a cyclist nearly ploughed into me.
I know it was my fault for not looking and Dublin Bus for stopping so far from the kerb. I was just wondering if what the cyclist did is illegal or just stupid?

Zab

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Where a bus is stopped in the City Centre, Particularly on George Street. I was the first passenger to step off and a cyclist nearly ploughed into me.
I know it was my fault for not looking and Dublin Bus for stopping so far from the kerb. I was just wondering if what the cyclist did is illegal or just stupid?

This seems like it's almost entirely the bus driver's fault. I'd rank the blame as Bus Driver > you > cyclist. The cyclist and yourself both should have been more aware (just in the self preservation sense) but the driver should have been at the curb and also should have been looking in the mirror to check for cyclists or other dangers.

Cyclists "undertaking" slow moving or stopped vehicles really should be careful as motorists often seem to not watch for it.

opti0nal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Where a bus is stopped in the City Centre, Particularly on George Street. I was the first passenger to step off and a cyclist nearly ploughed into me.

Outbound or inbound? There's a cycle track on the outbound side. Did the bus driver overtake the cyclist & then open his doors to allow passengers to alight?

Any cyclist going up the inside of a bus should be watching to see if the door is open and, in any case, only progressing at walking pace as it's very obvious that passengers might be alighting.

That area is full of car-owners on Dublin Bikes acting like kids.

mcmoustache

I cycle everywhere. I live in town, don't own a car and dislike public transportation.

I've said it before on the cycling forum but I find the majority of other cyclists on the road to be f*ckin' eejits. My main gripes with them are the red light jumping, cycling on the footpaths and of course cycling the wrong way in cycle lanes.

I long for the day when they can just be issued with a fixed-penalty fine and have their bikes confiscated.

The following rant may contain strong language depending on whether "****" replaces "fool" or "cúnt". Take your pick...

People who ride bikes on the footpath are chicken-shít ****s. The only people who are legally allowed and who should cycle on the path are children. If adults can't handle cycling on the road, they shouldn't be on the bike at all because they are clearly too much of a ***** to handle a simple 2-wheeled device. I think that pedestrians should be immune from prosecution if they decide to knock these limp-willied ****s off. Footpaths are for pedestrians. Bikes take the road. Simple.

Red light jumpers are self-centred dumb ****. Some of them think that the law doesn't apply to them. Other's think that they won't get prosecuted for it. Then there are the self-righteous ****s that think they know better and "only do it when it's safe". This motivation really bothers me - it's as if to say, "well, other road users can't be breaking lights but I can because I'm a **** who knows better than the rest of them. Yes, can't you tell by my smug ****ishness that I'm smarter than all those other road users?"

The scariest ****s on the road as far as I can see are the ****s on bikes who are on the wrong side of the road. If one is approaching me, do I go left, right? What about the **** coming towards me? He's clearly a retarded **** if he's on the wrong side of the road. He'll probably manage to go both ways at once smacking head on into me at a relative velocity of 40kph. I normally just shout and inform them of their ****ishness but at times I wish I had an oversized spanner or a ball and chain to wish them a good day.


I think cyclists get an awful lot of stick on the roads but it a lot of cases it's well deserved. Of all the types of road users, I find them to be the worst. Maybe I'm biased because I'm on a bike myself. Maybe the sight of cyclists running red lights frustrates me as I wait for the lights to change. Maybe it's because most of my accidents and near misses were caused by dopey ****s on bikes jumping lights, cycling the wrong way or joining a main road from a side road without looking. Maybe it's because I had to wait behind and then overtake the same **** 4 times yesterday on my way home. I don't know.

I understand that there is plenty of bad driving out there. I see it very often but it doesn't seem to be as obvious and blatant as what I see in town every day. You can apply whatever whataboutery to other road users but something should really be done about all the ****ish cyclists out there.

fasttalkerchat

mcmoustache wrote: »

He'll probably manage to go both ways at once smacking head on into me at a relative velocity of 40kph.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::D


Sorry for the stupid question but I assume the right way is with your back to the traffic?

opti0nal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Sorry for the stupid question but I assume the right way is with your back to the traffic?

Yes.

But in France, in 30kph zones they put up signs allowing other-way riding in one-way streets, but the cyclist is expected to give way if it's tight.

In Dublin, we have such a 'contra-flow' cycle track outside the tourist office in Andrew Street, but it's often used for car/van parking. The drivers don't give a hoot and I've never seen anyone ticketed.

mcmoustache

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::D


Sorry for the stupid question but I assume the right way is with your back to the traffic?

As a general rule, you should be going on the same side of the road as the cars. Some lanes such as those on the south quays near Westland Row are against the flow of traffic but it's on a footpath. It confuses both pedestrians and cyclists alike. I recently came across this weird two-way cycle lane on one side of the road for about 50m of the Inchicore Road. I had never seen such a thing before but it scared the bejaysus out of me so I stayed on the road.

Thankfully, almost all cycle lanes in the city have a bicycle painted on them. If the bike looks upside-down, it means you're going the wrong way.

SerialComplaint

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

He's a Bike, not a Car, and there was LOADS of ROOM to overtake. The car analogy only holds if you widen the road to about 10 car-widths.

It's nothing to do with the overtaking width. The question is not how did he overtake. The question is why did he overtake? Why did he think 'I'm the most important cyclist here so I'll go to the front of queue, and who cares about the folks behind me'? Why did he slow down faster cyclists behind him - not once, not twice but three times. And presumably he does it at every single junction he comes to. It's just ignorant, rude and self-centred cycling.

Zab

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the overtaking width. The question is not how did he overtake. The question is why did he overtake? Why did he think 'I'm the most important cyclist here so I'll go to the front of queue, and who cares about the folks behind me'? Why did he slow down faster cyclists behind him - not once, not twice but three times. And presumably he does it at every single junction he comes to. It's just ignorant, rude and self-centred cycling.

I mean, the guy clearly shouldn't be doing it, but really, who gives a fúck? Seems like a non-issue to me. Not worth confronting him. Just smile to yourself and overtake him again.

Lorgach

As CynicalDub says in his Blog. . . . . the Rules of the Road do not apply to cyclists. . . Especially when it comes to Traffic Lights.... "What Traffic Lights ???"

SerialComplaint

Zab wrote: »

I mean, the guy clearly shouldn't be doing it, but really, who gives a fúck? Seems like a non-issue to me. Not worth confronting him.

The cyclists behind him give a fúck. If I cut in front of you in an ATM queue, do you just smile to yourself? And then I do it again. And then I do it again?

Zab

SerialComplaint wrote: »

The cyclists behind him give a fúck. If I cut in front of you in an ATM queue, do you just smile to yourself? And then I do it again. And then I do it again?

It isn't the same, and you know it. It isn't the same as your car example earlier either. Anyway, feel free to get annoyed about it, I'm just suggesting your energy might be better spent getting annoyed at things that matter more (and I don't only mean massive issues like murder or whatever, but even just traffic issues that endanger you rather than just hold you up for a few seconds).

bluecode

Colmustard wrote: »

So are you saying pedestrians should also pay carbon tax.

Besides I hold my breath while I cycle.

Good man, you win the green medal of honour.

brosy

Just came back from Amsterdam after 2 months of pure bicycle heaven. People over there don't need cars as they have realised that they live in a tiny city, much like Dublin, and much larger than Cork, where I am currently back in. People are happier, healthier and quite obviously get where they want to get in the city much faster with zero fuss. Cars are rightly in second place to the bikes throughout the city bounds. In my 2-3 hours plus of daily cycling throughout Amsterdam I never had one incident, saw one accident, or even heard a single car beep its horn (which I only noticed when I came back today and heard morons beeping constantly while pretending to themselves that traffic will de-congest as a result).

There is no excuse for becoming the lazy, angry and fat nation we have become.

Do yourself, your children and everyone around you a favour. Ditch the car and get a bike if you live in the city.
There's no excuse.

SerialComplaint

Zab wrote: »

It isn't the same, and you know it. It isn't the same as your car example earlier either.

It's exactly the same - it is a self-centered git who reckons he is somehow more important than the other people around him.

Zab wrote: »

Anyway, feel free to get annoyed about it, I'm just suggesting your energy might be better spent getting annoyed at things that matter more (and I don't only mean massive issues like murder or whatever, but even just traffic issues that endanger you rather than just hold you up for a few seconds).

Thanks for your lifecoaching advice. But really, it's not wanted. I'm quite capable of making my own decisions about where to expend my energy. But it doesn't really take much energy to call somebody out on their rude behaviour.

Zab

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It's exactly the same - it is a self-centered git who reckons he is somehow more important than the other people around him.

Thanks for your lifecoaching advice. But really, it's not wanted. I'm quite capable of making my own decisions about where to expend my energy. But it doesn't really take much energy to call somebody out on their rude behaviour.

That's from his perspective, but we're discussing the impact on you and others which isn't the same at all. As such, they both make poor analogies.

Fair enough on the lifecoaching.

Stark

I'm with SerialComplaint on this one. At best it's downright ignorant, at worst dangerous as other cyclists are constantly forced into overtaking maneuvers that they shouldn't have to make.

dearg lady

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It's time to speak up against 'shoaling' cyclists like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_yLn_Oegg

Oh god, this actually makes my blood boil. It's so bloody rude, I wonder if these people even think about what they're doing it. Bad enough there where you were able to easily overtake, but on a narrow busy road, and your stuck behind some eejit, arrrrrgghhhhhhh!

fasttalkerchat

Had an awful experience today with a cyclist. I was driving along decent A roads (up north) and came up behind a cyclist. I sat behind him at about 10 mph (on a 60 road) but couldn't overtake because he was in the middle of the lane!
A few times I wanted to pass but couldn't incase he swerved because he was sitting so far out into the lane. I know you should leave the same space as if it was a car but no car drives at 15% the speed limit without good reason! We even passed several picnic spots where he could have pulled in and let the cars pass safely but continued on for about 10 miles until there was a clear stretch for some of the cars to pass.

brosy

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

! We even passed several picnic spots where he could have pulled in and let the cars pass safely but continued on for about 10 miles until there was a clear stretch for some of the cars to pass.

10 miles? Seriously, 10 miles???

If you need to lie while making a point, then you don't actually have a point, you have a lie.

CramCycle

brosy wrote: »

10 miles? Seriously, 10 miles???

If you need to lie while making a point, then you don't actually have a point, you have a lie.

LOL, anyone else feel the heat off that burn :eek:

Seriously though, if you couldn't over take him while he was in the centre of the lane then I seriously doubt that you could have over taken him safely if he was anywhere else in the lane.