In defence of cyclists

Qualitymark

The drivers here scolding cyclists for not using cycling lanes, or for not cycling close enough to the kerb might understand better if they got out their bike from the back of the garage and cycled the same roads.

Many of the cycle lanes are so badly maintained that it's really dangerous to cycle in them. Many of them are dotted with badly fitted manhole and inspection covers and broken drain covers - dangerous when dry, lethal when wet. It's often safer to cycle further out; if you cycle in the bicycle lane or close to the kerb, you're going to have to swerve out in front of cars to avoid being thrown from your bicycle by hitting these obstacles.

Example: Rathmines main street was a danger to the many cyclists who use it, and the drivers trying to drive safely there, until it was resurfaced last month. A lot less hassle now.

As for the cyclists going through red lights and cycling on pavements, an on-the-spot fine (payable only by cheque or credit card, and receipted, to avoid the temptation for gardaí to become corrupt) would be a good idea, and would swiftly wipe out these dangerous practices.

opti0nal

Jayla Scrawny Ramrod wrote: »

Did I miss the part about cyclists going around at night in dark clothes ,no lights and still expecting to be seen by motorists.
EVery time I drive at night I at night I get at least one.

I think drivers struggle with the contradiction of saying they saw them while complaining they can't.

Situation has improved with the arrival of cheap, light & reliable lights.

MajesticDonkey

In fairness, I don't think it would be a bad idea either if anyone with a bicycle was required to get insurance, i.e. with Cycling Ireland for example. It's what, €10 or €15 for the year and covers personal accident and public liability.

Qualitymark

Have to agree about cyclists with dark clothes. I've on occasion got out of my car, borrowed a cyclist's coat and bike and put him in my car and cycled off to show him how invisible he is.

monkeysnapper

Qualitymark wrote: »

Have to agree about cyclists with dark clothes. I've on occasion got out of my car, borrowed a cyclist's coat and bike and put him in my car and cycled off to show him how invisible he is.

Ha ha class, you wouldn't get away with that kind of craic for long around where I live lol

Qualitymark

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Ha ha class, you wouldn't get away with that kind of craic for long around where I live lol

You would if your car was mine! Mostly the bikes are worth more than my car.

Tony EH

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it would be a bad idea either if anyone with a bicycle was required to get insurance, i.e. with Cycling Ireland for example. It's what, €10 or €15 for the year and covers personal accident and public liability.

**** that.

It'll start out at 10 quid or so, then in few years rise to something stupid, just like everything else in this country.

Cycling is the last free travel option and it shouldn't be touched.

Darkglasses

Tony EH wrote: »

**** that.

It'll start out at 10 quid or so, then in few years rise to something stupid, just like everything else in this country.

Cycling is the last free travel option and it shouldn't be touched.

Well it already exists with Cycling Ireland, and has done for many years. The price hasn't changed to anything stupid I think you'll agree:

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/Home/FAQ.aspx

hardCopy

Darkglasses wrote: »

Tony EH wrote: »

**** that.

It'll start out at 10 quid or so, then in few years rise to something stupid, just like everything else in this country.

Cycling is the last free travel option and it shouldn't be touched.

Well it already exists with Cycling Ireland, and has done for many years. The price hasn't changed to anything stupid I think you'll agree:

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/Home/FAQ.aspx

That's because it's not mandatory

opti0nal

hardCopy wrote: »

That's because it's not mandatory

The reason it's not mandatory and is so low is because the amount of death, injury and damage caused by cyclists is negligible and any premium would reflect the risk and likely damages.

Motorists must have insurance because the sad facts are there to make it necessary.

hoodwinked

Tony EH wrote: »

It's legal to cycle two abreast.

Maybe it's you who need to learn the "rules of the road".

if thats the case why do the rules of the road say the following:

Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.

note the words in bold there....

Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic.

i do believe Dublin city center is pretty much heavy traffic at most times...

and

Do cycle in single file when overtaking.

i believe the point is with other cars present single file is only acceptable....


http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html

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

sidenote- Funny how this is ignored when you see a cyclist being followed by about 20 cars.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Have to agree about cyclists with dark clothes. I've on occasion got out of my car, borrowed a cyclist's coat and bike and put him in my car and cycled off to show him how invisible he is.

to be fair these past few weeks ive seen more cars driving in the dark with no lights on, which imo is far more dangerous than a cyclist where usually they have reflectors at the least.

Tony EH

hoodwinked wrote: »

if thats the case why do the rules of the road say the following:

note the words in bold there....

The fact still remains that it is NOT illegal to cycle two abreast.

Moving to single file on a busy road makes sense for the cyclist, but there is nothing illegal about it.

Tony EH

hardCopy wrote: »

That's because it's not mandatory

You've hit the nail on the head there.

hardCopy

Tony EH wrote: »

hardCopy wrote: »

That's because it's not mandatory

You've hit the nail on the head there.

You watching Happy Gilmore too?

opti0nal

hoodwinked wrote: »

if thats the case why do the rules of the road say the following...

If you read the introduction you should have seen that they use the word 'must' when it is something required by law. When they use 'Do' it means it's simply advice.

In any case, the RoTR is not the actual law.

Now, if you want to say that cyclists should cycle single file because it's nice for motorists, then you'll have to agree that motorists should not park on the road because they get in the way of cyclists. And, there is a law about this which is presently not enforced.

hoodwinked

opti0nal wrote: »

If you read the introduction you should have seen that they use the word 'must' when it is something required by law. When they use 'Do' it means it's simply advice.

In any case, the RoTR is not the actual law.

Now, if you want to say that cyclists should cycle single file because it's nice for motorists, then you'll have to agree that motorists should not park on the road because they get in the way of cyclists. And, there is a law about this which is presently not enforced.

seriously you are saying cyclist's can ignore the rules of the road because they are not law yet complain about motorist's breaking the rules of the road?


for the record the poster i was quoting was suggesting he read "the rules of the road"

i was simply pointing out they say cyclist's MUST obey. in that same intro.

The table below sets down particular road traffic rules on cycling which you must obey.

road traffic rules you must obey? not that hard to see you as a cyclist have to follow them or you are breaking the rules of the road and are a danger.

magicbastarder

re cycling insurance - it'd probably be counterproductive, as it'd push cyclists off the road and into cars, and given that the average damage claim on a car is almost certainly higher than the average value of a bike, insurance premiums (premia?) in general would rise.

opti0nal

hoodwinked wrote: »

seriously you are saying cyclist's can ignore the rules of the road because they are not law yet complain about motorist's breaking the rules of the road?

It works both ways.

hardCopy

hoodwinked wrote: »

opti0nal wrote: »

If you read the introduction you should have seen that they use the word 'must' when it is something required by law. When they use 'Do' it means it's simply advice.

In any case, the RoTR is not the actual law.

Now, if you want to say that cyclists should cycle single file because it's nice for motorists, then you'll have to agree that motorists should not park on the road because they get in the way of cyclists. And, there is a law about this which is presently not enforced.

seriously you are saying cyclist's can ignore the rules of the road because they are not law yet complain about motorist's breaking the rules of the road?


for the record the poster i was quoting was suggesting he read "the rules of the road"

i was simply pointing out they say cyclist's MUST obey. in that same intro.

The table below sets down particular road traffic rules on cycling which you must obey.

road traffic rules you must obey? not that hard to see you as a cyclist have to follow them or you are breaking the rules of the road and are a danger.

I think he was referring to drivers who park in cycle lanes, which it's completely illegal, ie against the law.

Cyclists cycling two abreast is if course completely legal and not against any law.

Rules of the Road are not always Laws of the Road but there is some overlap.

Optimalprimerib

So the other day I was driving and pulled into a turn left only lane with a cyclist pottering straight through I felt like blowing him off the road.

1. If he was going straight he should be in the correct lane
2. THERE WAS A CYCLE PATH RIGHT BESIDE HIM

I respect cyclists but they don't deserve respect if they don't respect the rules

Qualitymark

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

So the other day I was driving and pulled into a turn left only lane with a cyclist pottering straight through I felt like blowing him off the road.

1. If he was going straight he should be in the correct lane
2. THERE WAS A CYCLE PATH RIGHT BESIDE HIM

I respect cyclists but they don't deserve respect if they don't respect the rules

Logic lapse here. You talk about one cyclist, Optimalprimerib. Then you extend this to cover cyclists. Cyclists are a disparate group of people, just like drivers. You can't put them all into the same bag, any more than you can lump the stupid van driver on his mobile phone while smoking and racing through a pedestrian crossing as a blind man and his guide dog try to cross, in with the sensible driver parking correctly and being considerate to other road users.

hoodwinked

opti0nal wrote: »

It works both ways.

it does, i agree but shouldn't both sets be aiming to adhere to the rules of the road rather than saying "we cyclists can all break them because some cars do and anyway they are not law so it doesn't matter"

when all the cyclist's throughout the thread are attacking motorists because they break the rules of the road???

hardCopy wrote: »

I think he was referring to drivers who park in cycle lanes, which it's completely illegal, ie against the law.

Cyclists cycling two abreast is if course completely legal and not against any law.

Rules of the Road are not always Laws of the Road but there is some overlap.

Cycling two abreast is against the rules of the road when traffic is present or it inconveniences drivers, the fact is you as a cyclist are no better than the driver parked in a cycle lane,

when it comes to breaking the rules of the road if you have ever not used a cycle lane when its present (potholes or not) you are choosing to break the rules of the road as its the best option for you.

likewise if you have ever inconvenienced traffic you have chosen to brake the rules of the road, just like the car who parked on the cycle lane.

two wrongs do not make a right, and cyclists should berate cyclists who break the rules of the road not defend them by saying "its not law" just like we generalise and berate bad motorists! (we all do it :pac: )

Qualitymark wrote: »

Logic lapse here. You talk about one cyclist, Optimalprimerib. Then you extend this to cover cyclists. Cyclists are a disparate group of people, just like drivers. You can't put them all into the same bag, any more than you can lump the stupid van driver on his mobile phone while smoking and racing through a pedestrian crossing as a blind man and his guide dog try to cross, in with the sensible driver parking correctly and being considerate to other road users.

see last paragraph above.

the fact is there is more than one cyclist breaking these rules and being a menace on the roads there may be only a small group in relation to all the cyclists out there, but as with motorist it takes a small few to give a bad name to the majority. he clearly wasn't going listing every case thus gave one, and generalised based on the rest.

we have all come across numerous motorists breaking rules of the road, we have all come across numerous cyclists breaking the rules of the road.

thus generalisations on both.

SetOverSet

Born to Die wrote: »

Do cyclists pay road tax and insurance for their bicycles?

There's no such thing as *road* tax, at least not in this country and I struggle to see how motor tax would apply to bicycles.

hardCopy

hoodwinked wrote: »

opti0nal wrote: »

It works both ways.

it does, i agree but shouldn't both sets be aiming to adhere to the rules of the road rather than saying "we cyclists can all break them because some cars do and anyway they are not law so it doesn't matter"

when all the cyclist's throughout the thread are attacking motorists because they break the rules of the road???

hardCopy wrote: »

I think he was referring to drivers who park in cycle lanes, which it's completely illegal, ie against the law.

Cyclists cycling two abreast is if course completely legal and not against any law.

Rules of the Road are not always Laws of the Road but there is some overlap.

Cycling two abreast is against the rules of the road when traffic is present or it inconveniences drivers, the fact is you as a cyclist are no better than the driver parked in a cycle lane,

when it comes to breaking the rules of the road if you have ever not used a cycle lane when its present (potholes or not) you are choosing to break the rules of the road as its the best option for you.

likewise if you have ever inconvenienced traffic you have chosen to brake the rules of the road, just like the car who parked on the cycle lane.

two wrongs do not make a right, and cyclists should berate cyclists who break the rules of the road not defend them by saying "its not law" just like we generalise and berate bad motorists! (we all do it :pac: )

Qualitymark wrote: »

Logic lapse here. You talk about one cyclist, Optimalprimerib. Then you extend this to cover cyclists. Cyclists are a disparate group of people, just like drivers. You can't put them all into the same bag, any more than you can lump the stupid van driver on his mobile phone while smoking and racing through a pedestrian crossing as a blind man and his guide dog try to cross, in with the sensible driver parking correctly and being considerate to other road users.

see last paragraph above.

the fact is there is more than one cyclist breaking these rules and being a menace on the roads there may be only a small group in relation to all the cyclists out there, but as with motorist it takes a small few to give a bad name to the majority. he clearly wasn't going listing every case thus gave one, and generalised based on the rest.

we have all come across numerous motorists breaking rules of the road, we have all come across numerous cyclists breaking the rules of the road.

thus generalisations on both.

Do you still not get it? The Rules of the Road are essentially meaningless in law. Some of the rules just happen to be laws, others are not.

Parking in a cycle lane - Illegal
Not using a cycle lane where present - Illegal (pending a long promised change in this law)
Cycling two abreast - LEGAL,and best practice in many situations.

Qualitymark

Why are motorists in such a hurry anyway? Unless they're heading to hospital to get treatment for the heart attack caused by their sedentary lifestyle, it's not going to make a *huge* difference to go a little slower.

Renn

Cycling two abreast - LEGAL,and best practice in many situations.

Except when

cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.

Which would rule this out for many people cycling in Dublin city centre.

hardCopy

Renn wrote: »

Cycling two abreast - LEGAL,and best practice in many situations.

Except when

cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.

Which would rule this out for many people cycling in Dublin city centre.

Have you ever seen cyclists riding two abreast in the city centre?

Renn

Actually saw two gardaí doing so on Camden St yesterday. But they're special.

CramCycle

hoodwinked wrote: »

when it comes to breaking the rules of the road if you have ever not used a cycle lane when its present (potholes or not) you are choosing to break the rules of the road as its the best option for you.

This is not true, much like in a car, if a lane or part of a road is dangerous to drive through, you are perfectly and legally entitled to circumnavigate it. In principle the same applies to cyclists, if the track is inherently dangerous it can and should be avoided.

What you are implying is if there was a crater on the road, or debris that could damage your tyres, you should drive through it instead of avoiding it if possible or safe? The majority of cycle tracks are not fit for use in Dublin from a safety perspective and most of them are not legally binding tracks by definition if you want to get pedantic about it.

hardCopy

hardCopy wrote: »

Have you ever seen cyclists riding two abreast in the city centre?

In the bus lane if I am with a mate I'll go two abreast. It's not too much to expect to be able to talk to another cyclist when you're out on a spin!

hoodwinked

hardCopy wrote: »

Have you ever seen cyclists riding two abreast in the city centre?

In Cork city all the time! three or more abreast is the norm in this city, especially on the country roads, we've more often than not turned a corner in the car to see three or more cyclists abreast. and they don't move in either even if they are inconveniencing the traffic queuing behind them..

CramCycle wrote: »

This is not true, much like in a car, if a lane or part of a road is dangerous to drive through, you are perfectly and legally entitled to circumnavigate it. In principle the same applies to cyclists, if the track is inherently dangerous it can and should be avoided.

What you are implying is if there was a crater on the road, or debris that could damage your tyres, you should drive through it instead of avoiding it if possible or safe? The majority of cycle tracks are not fit for use in Dublin from a safety perspective and most of them are not legally binding tracks by definition if you want to get pedantic about it.

if you read what i wrote i was implying that the best option for the cyclist is to avoid the potholed track, but its still breaching the rules of the road (not the laws as i have repeatedly said rules of the road) the same Rules of the road cyclists were quoting up until i linked the actual rules of the road.

hoodwinked

Qualitymark wrote: »

Why are motorists in such a hurry anyway? Unless they're heading to hospital to get treatment for the heart attack caused by their sedentary lifestyle, it's not going to make a *huge* difference to go a little slower.

Doesn't matter what their hurry is, it is their right to adhere to speed limits set, as a cyclist the rules of the road state you do not inconvenience them.

if you abide by the rules of the road, you don't inconvenience them, and if you choose to break the rules of the road, why do you use the road?

hardCopy

hoodwinked wrote: »

Qualitymark wrote: »

Why are motorists in such a hurry anyway? Unless they're heading to hospital to get treatment for the heart attack caused by their sedentary lifestyle, it's not going to make a *huge* difference to go a little slower.

Doesn't matter what their hurry is, it is their right to adhere to speed limits set, as a cyclist the rules of the road state you do not inconvenience them.

if you abide by the rules of the road, you don't inconvenience them, and if you choose to break the rules of the road, why do you use the road?

Really? Do I have to explain it again?

The Rules of the Road are not actually "Rules" they're just advice, the various road traffic acts set out the laws. NOBODY has to obey the Rules of the Road.

And as for cyclists riding two abreast in the country, that's perfectly legal and best practice. I suggest you read the thread as the reasons have been explained multiple times, probably on every second page.

Nobody has a right to drive at the speed limit, Jesus Christ I hope I never have to cycle in cork if you have a driving license

hoodwinked

hardCopy wrote: »

Really? Do I have to explain it again?

The Rules of the Road are not actually "Rules" they're just advice, the various road traffic acts set out the laws. NOBODY has to obey the Rules of the Road.

And as for cyclists riding two abreast in the country, that's perfectly legal and best practice. I suggest you read the thread as the reasons have been explained multiple times, probably on every second page.

Nobody has a right to drive at the speed limit, Jesus Christ I hope I never have to cycle in cork if you have a driving license

a: if nobody has to obey the rules of the road then why were cyclists before you giving out about motorist breaking the rules of the road? they are allowed to right?


b: two abreast on country roads is fine, as long as they are NOT inconveniencing traffic, three or four abreast is not ok.


c: i never said they had the right to drive at speed limits i said they had the right to adhere to speed limits set, if you read my posts you would see that.

Iwannahurl

Cycling two abreast is not illegal.

Car occupants* travel two abreast all the time, chatting and being sociable if they feel like it.

So why not cyclists and pedestrians? Walking side-by-side in twos or threes is inherently sociable, and the key to walkability is being able to walk next to someone. The same ought to apply to cycling.

Given the ridiculously narrow cycle lanes/paths frequently foisted on us in this country, and the utterly normal practice of motorists parking on footpaths, it is frequently the case that cyclists and pedestrians are literally forced to move over to accommodate, not other people, but vehicles. Furthermore, a very large percentage of trips by car are single-occupant only, so the congestion-busting cyclists and pedestrians are being squeezed to make room for a mode of travel that takes up a grossly disproportionate amount of finite road space.










*In the same car, lest anyone quibble. EDIT: And now that I think of it, what about all those two-lane and three-lane roads in urban areas, with extra cycle-hostile features added such as one-way systems and uncontrolled speed?

Cantona's Collars

Note to the "Sunday Cyclist Brigade": The N11 from Enniscorthy to Wexford has a nice wide hard shoulder,try to stay to the inside of it.A few heart in mouth moments as cyclists rode out on the road edge as traffic whizzed by at 100kph +,all it would have taken was a slight wobble or hitting a cats eye & the result would have been dead bodies on the road.

CramCycle

hoodwinked wrote: »

In Cork city all the time! three or more abreast is the norm in this city, especially on the country roads, we've more often than not turned a corner in the car to see three or more cyclists abreast. and they don't move in either even if they are inconveniencing the traffic queuing behind them..

By that logic all cars should pull in during rush hour traffic as they inconvenience me by sitting on junctions at odd angles making it dangerous and difficult to negotiate junctions, in fact at any peak traffic time, I am quicker than any other mode of traffic while sticking to the law and the ROTR, although I generally only follow the ROTR that make sense at it is advice, some of it good but some of it clearly written by people with no experience and therefore nothing useful to contribute to a pamphlet on safety and manners on the road.

I don't beep at others though, I don't shout at them, unless their actions could endanger myself or other road users and even then I usually wait till i can pull in and just mention it in a nice tone, you often find that being polite helps get a point across. Some times you have to shout to get heard in an emergency. That said I make mistakes myself, both in a car and on a bicycle, so far not in any way i know to cause harm to others, I drive sometimes, I don't like it to much as I find it stressful but oddly enough, drivers have made it too dangerous in the eyes of my OH to let our daughter cycle to school so I have to drop her down some mornings. Whereas in my scenario, if road users (and I mean all, cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, paid a little bit more attention, not asking them to become saints) I'd be off the road in the morning, possibly so would several others, meaning less traffic, everyone gets there quicker, less likely someone gets hurt or stressed.

if you read what i wrote i was implying that the best option for the cyclist is to avoid the potholed track, but its still breaching the rules of the road (not the laws as i have repeatedly said rules of the road) the same Rules of the road cyclists were quoting up until i linked the actual rules of the road.

I never quoted them, I am cyclist, therefore only some cyclists quote the rules of the road but I imagine, like many road users, there are probably very few who have read it in its entirety, here is a hint, while there is alot of useful advice, there are a few misleading points in there.

Road Act 1993

Part IV

Road users' duty of care.

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

hoodwinked wrote: »

Doesn't matter what their hurry is, it is their right to adhere to speed limits set, as a cyclist the rules of the road state you do not inconvenience them.

a bit of clarity, its a (and I can't say this enough) LIMIT, not a TARGET, a LIMIT.

It is no ones right to adhere to the speed limit, coming to a blind bend on a 100km/hr signed road, do you stick as close as possible because you feel you have a right to or do you slow down to a safe and reasonable speed to hopefully deal with any unforeseen circumstances.

I can assure you, and ask any member of AGS, it is the latter.

Try and remember that.

jaffacakesyum

I have to say, I'm a cyclist (and motorist but more often cycle) and I HATE cyclists who travel two or more abreast and don't move in for cars. It's common courtesy - it doesn't take much to move into single file.

One thing that bugs me is cars parked on cycle lanes - I think this should be made illegal but obviously wouldn't really work well as the idea behind a city like Dublin anyway is to have cycle lanes wherever possible, and if it were illegal to park on cycle lanes, there'd be nowhere to park. Still, VERY frustrating having to move out to pass parked cars every 2 minutes in some areas.

Also, to the poster saying you don't have to abide to the Rules of the Road. If everyone did that, Irish roads would be even worse than they already are. PLEASE abide by the Rules of the Road. That goes for cyclists and motorists.

EDIT: Just read back a bit in the thread and apparently it is illegal to park in a cycle lane. Why isn't this enforced?

anncoates

This thread is proof that only the Parenting and Animals and Pet forums equal Cycling for zealous nutcase incubation.

Iwannahurl

anncoates wrote: »

This thread is proof that only the Parenting and Animals and Pet forums equal Cycling for zealous nutcase incubation.

Your post is proof you should stick to topics like this.

hoodwinked

CramCycle wrote: »

By that logic all cars should pull in during rush hour traffic as they inconvenience me by sitting on junctions at odd angles making it dangerous and difficult to negotiate junctions, in fact at any peak traffic time, I am quicker than any other mode of traffic while sticking to the law and the ROTR, although I generally only follow the ROTR that make sense at it is advice, some of it good but some of it clearly written by people with no experience and therefore nothing useful to contribute to a pamphlet on safety and manners on the road.

its not about being quicker, to be fair im quoting what the rules of the road dictate, i am making the argument you can't argue about motorists breaking the rules of the road, if you are willing to do the same,


at least argue the motorists are breaking the laws of the road, and quote the law they are breaking or state it is your opinion which then it would be.

CramCycle wrote: »

I never quoted them, I am cyclist, therefore only some cyclists quote the rules of the road but I imagine, like many road users, there are probably very few who have read it in its entirety, here is a hint, while there is alot of useful advice, there are a few misleading points in there.

Road Act 1993

Part IV

Road users' duty of care.

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

like you did here!

apologies my cyclists plural was relating to the many cyclists who did post them, not inclusive of all, otherwise i would state all cyclists.

CramCycle wrote: »

a bit of clarity, its a (and I can't say this enough) LIMIT, not a TARGET, a LIMIT.

It is no ones right to adhere to the speed limit, coming to a blind bend on a 100km/hr signed road, do you stick as close as possible because you feel you have a right to or do you slow down to a safe and reasonable speed to hopefully deal with any unforeseen circumstances.

I can assure you, and ask any member of AGS, it is the latter.

Try and remember that.

i don't believe limits are targets, i believe they are the maximum safe speed for that road, i agree with you on a corner on a 100km stretch i would slow to the safest speed for that corner. obviously as a driver it is up to me to base my speed on the current road conditions and conditions around me, anything could effect speed on a road....thats a totally different argument.

but on the issue of speed and cyclists when you see cyclists on roads with speeds of 120km i do believe that is a crazy thing for a cyclist to attempt,

especially since they are banned from motorways due to that speed being the limit. again though it is up to the authorities to enforce motorway rules on those stretches of roads and they haven't, but there is one stretch of road in Cork by ballincollig bypass where numerous cyclists have been killed due to cycling on the 120km stretch (a very sad fact and one i wish didn't exist),but they are also ignoring the fact there are brand new perfect cycle lanes running parallel to it through the town.

Canis Lupus

Strange how people have such a weird sense of entitlement when out on the road.

I cycle. I generally behave and I usually try my best not to inconvenience other road users.

I drive, I give space and time to cyclists. If I can't overtake on a windy road I wait. It never takes long.

To other seemingly infuriated drivers what's the rush and why all the hate?

hoodwinked

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Strange how people have such a weird sense of entitlement when out on the road.

I cycle. I generally behave and I usually try my best not to inconvenience other road users.

I drive, I give space and time to cyclists. If I can't overtake on a windy road I wait. It never takes long.

To other seemingly infuriated drivers what's the rush and why all the hate?

i am being totally sincere here when i say thank you, and i wish all cyclists were like you,

but some cyclists unfortunately are too quick to blame motorists, when in fact they should be blaming the bad cyclists.

i may joke about it in here (it is after hours :pac: ) but the last thing i would ever want is to hurt someone on the road, im well aware my car could do more damage to a cyclist then they could do to me, and i take care to make sure i don't go to near to them. i also have relatives who drive motorcycles and having been on them and seeing how drivers re-act to them makes me more cautious on the roads with both cyclists and motor cyclists.

at the end of the day i only got involved because having seen constantly cyclists breaching the ROTR and then coming on here saying its ok because motorists do it too, infuriated me,

two wrongs do not make a right and we ALL should be striving to obey the rules of the road, not dismissing them because they are not 'law'.

Iwannahurl

hoodwinked wrote: »

at the end of the day i only got involved because having seen constantly cyclists breaching the ROTR and then coming on here saying its ok because motorists do it too, infuriated me,

Non-compliance with traffic law is endemic in this country.

Just try demanding that certain laws be enforced and see how far you get.

CramCycle

hoodwinked wrote: »

its not about being quicker, to be fair im quoting what the rules of the road dictate, i am making the argument you can't argue about motorists breaking the rules of the road, if you are willing to do the same,

But I am making that point, almost every form of road user breaks the rule of the road, whether by accident, lack of common sense or just ignorance, regardless of the reason it is done, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread though, common sense and safety should override the ROTR in all circumstances. I did point out where some motorists break the ROTR, in a similar manner to cyclists, do I care, sometimes, depends on the situation and whether it was a common sense manoeuvre.

at least argue the motorists are breaking the laws of the road, and quote the law they are breaking or state it is your opinion which then it would be.

I have, sitting on junctions would be the first one to cross my mind. Ignorant and irritating, not dangerous if everyone is paying attention but stupid nonetheless, but this isn't a motorist vs. cyclist debate or at least it shouldn't be.
IMO it should be a common sense versus all else, and then more clearly, what constitutes common sense for the various types of road users, try and see the situation from everyones point of view not just from the one side, as it paints a wholly unfair picture.

i don't believe limits are targets, i believe they are the maximum safe speed for that road, i agree with you on a corner on a 100km stretch i would slow to the safest speed for that corner. obviously as a driver it is up to me to base my speed on the current road conditions and conditions around me, anything could effect speed on a road....thats a totally different argument.

but they often aren't as anyone with a reasonable amount of experience driving on Irish roads should know, outside my family home in the country is 100k/hr, anything over 70 for a stretch of 5 miles either side of my house is inherently dangerous and in several places it should be 50, regardless of road conditions and how well you know the road, although several go faster without accident doesn't make it right. These roads have barely enough space for opposing traffic in terms of cars, let alone pedestrians without paths that you can't see because it may appear reasonably straight, there are several hills and slight bends with hedgegrow that in alot of places reduce clear visibility to between 10 and 50 metres.

but on the issue of speed and cyclists when you see cyclists on roads with speeds of 120km i do believe that is a crazy thing for a cyclist to attempt,

I've heard of it, never seen it, alot of people seem to get the N11 and the M11 sections confused. that said if you see it, and the cyclist is indeed endangering his life or others, take the time to pull in at an appropriate place further up the road, ring the Gardai and hopefully they can respond and either give them a warning or a fine, it may be a waste of time in their eyes but hopefully it won't happen again. If they are in a club jersey, and its not dangerous, get the name (or a description of the jersey, the cycling forum could identify it for you) report it to their club, you'll find details on the cyclingireland website.

especially since they are banned from motorways due to that speed being the limit. again though it is up to the authorities to enforce motorway rules on those stretches of roads and they haven't, but there is one stretch of road in Cork by ballincollig bypass where numerous cyclists have been killed due to cycling on the 120km stretch (a very sad fact and one i wish didn't exist),but they are also ignoring the fact there are brand new perfect cycle lanes running parallel to it through the town.

We have a very low death toll for cyclists in Ireland but if there is a danger there it should be signposted, is there a motorway around Ballincollig? if there isn't it should be 100 but thats just pedanticism on my part. I've cycled along the N22 myself once, not an enjoyable ride but not inherently dangerous either. I could hear some cars slowing on approach but all were able to overtake me with minimal or no delay.

Tony EH

hardCopy wrote: »

Have you ever seen cyclists riding two abreast in the city centre?

Exactly.

This whole argument is bollocks anyway.

I've been using Irish roads for decades and I can't even remember the last time I saw any cyclists riding two abreast.

I, myself, have never cycled two abreast with another cyclist.

It's not even a matter worthy of debate.

opti0nal

hoodwinked wrote: »

two wrongs do not make a right and we ALL should be striving to obey the rules of the road, not dismissing them because they are not 'law'.

Ok so, then how about cyclists agree to cycle in single file and drivers agree not to park on the road?

Darkglasses

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly.

This whole argument is bollocks anyway.

I've been using Irish roads for decades and I can't even remember the last time I saw any cyclists riding two abreast.

I, myself, have never cycled two abreast with another cyclist.

It's not even a matter worthy of debate.

I think it's the norm for every cycling club spin and sportive to cycle two abreast, as there will be quite a number of cyclists and if they were to go single file, the line would be much too long to pass.

SerialComplaint

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

A29 Drumcroon Road. What difference does that make?

I've had a look on Google Streetview - lots of broken white line stretches there. It's hard to believe that a cyclist could have delayed you for any significant period on that road. Unless there was constant oncoming traffic, there should have been many opportunities to overtake safely.

Tony EH

Darkglasses wrote: »

I think it's the norm for every cycling club spin and sportive to cycle two abreast, as there will be quite a number of cyclists and if they were to go single file, the line would be much too long to pass.

If that's the case and I don't know if it is, cycling clubs won't be touring through cities during heavy traffic anyway.

Either way, I simply cannot recall the last time I saw cyclists riding two abreast. Often times, it simply isn't safe for the cyclists to do so.