In defence of cyclists

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you even reading any of the replies to your posts?

Why, what have I missed?

smash

smash wrote: »

Why, what have I missed?

Every point you raised in the post I quoted has been dealt with and refuted multiple times by several people.

CruelCoin

Ares wrote: »

Then there is the whole "Hurr Durr, I pay road tax, Hurr Durr!" line of thinking. That should say spasticated line of thinking. 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.

But you're forgetting the abnormally high levels of SMUG emissions put out by cyclists.

The SMUG clouds almost obliterated Los Angeles. We can't afford to make the same mistake!

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Every point you raised in the post I quoted has been dealt with and refuted multiple times by several people.

Well I haven't read the whole thread. And they haven't been dealt with in reply to my posts.

Chips Lovell

Worth pointing out too that as a cyclist, I actually don't like having cars backed up behind me. It's slightly unnerving in that you worry that someone will do something stupid. Virtually every group I've cycled with would endeavour to get traffic by when it's safe to do so by singling out and/or signalling that it's safe to pass.

Problems do arise because that can be a subjective call and your view of what's safe and a motorist's view can differ. Indeed, I've encountered some motorists who seem to think that the proper reaction any time a car comes up behind you is to immediately cycle up on the ditch.

smash

smash wrote: »

Well I haven't read the whole thread. And they haven't been dealt with in reply to my posts.

Yes, they have.

Point 1: Not using cycle lane

This has been dealt with as nauseum by me and others. Cyclists will often avoid a cycle lane not for the lols, or for convenience, but for safety. I even posted a little infographic on it for you.

Point 2: Cycling 2 abreast

Again, as many posters have already said, this is often done to discourage close overtakes i.e. skimming, which many motorists apparently think is a perfectly fine way to pass cyclists. Also, it makes a large group of cyclists shorter, more compact and easier to overtake.

Now are you actually going to take this on board this time or will you continue repeating the same points for another 10 pages?

rubadub

Bambi wrote: »

How many cyclists do you see sailing up footpaths? Lots, like the massive c**ts that they are

how many pedestrians do you see sailing across roads illegally, lots, like the massive c**ts that they are.

Many are unaware we even have 'jaywalking' laws in this country. And as for the rules of the road, how many pedestrians out there follow the advice of the rules of the road and carry a torch at night?

I see pedestrians breaking the law far more than cyclists, but there's a big problem there, most people are pedestrians so they refuse to complain about 'their own'. Its no longer publicly tolerated for prejudiced bigots to moan about skin colour, religion, sex etc, so cyclists still seem to be the last bit of fair game for these arseholes to moan about.

This was posted in another thread before.

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Point 2: Cycling 2 abreast

Again, as many posters have already said, this is often done to discourage close overtakes i.e. skimming, which many motorists apparently think is a perfectly fine way to pass cyclists. Also, it makes a large group of cyclists shorter, more compact and easier to overtake.

And like I've said over and over. This doesn't mean they should have no consideration when they are causing an obstruction.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now are you actually going to take this on board this time or will you continue repeating the same points for another 10 pages?

Well I've been repeating myself and nobody has cared, just back to the same old crap about why cyclists shouldn't have to consider other road users.

ghostchant

In a situation where there isn't a safe way to overtake two side-by-side cyclists, there isn't a safe way to overtake them in single-file either, since skimming by them while remaining in the lane is far from safe, as has been mentioned. I don't see how going single-file will remove the obstruction in this case. All it will do is encourage a dangerous manoeuvre on the part of the motorist.

smash

smash wrote: »

Well I've been repeating myself and nobody has cared, just back to the same old crap about why cyclists shouldn't have to consider other road users.

Sigh.

Cyclists do consider other road users (well, most of the ones I know, including me) but if there is a situation where there is a conflict between my safety and someone else's convenience, my safety comes first. Of course I will make every effort to let a motorist past if it is safe to do so. That point has been repeated more times than I can count on this thread.

If a faster vehicle comes up behind you when driving do you immediately drive into the ditch so they can get past?

Disgraceful, show some consideration for other road users.

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Disgraceful, show some consideration for other road users.

That was my point from the beginning you know.

John_Rambo

smash wrote: »

Why, what have I missed?

Driving skills.

smash

John_Rambo wrote: »

Driving skills.

nice trolling. I'll take back what I said earlier about you not being an idiot now.

galwaycyclist

I know I should probably stay out of this but anyway

First principles

Roads Act 14 of 1993

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.

So a cyclist or other road user may not be reckless of their own safety or that of their own property in addition to having a duty of care towards others.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in law that requires a cyclist to endanger themselves or their property in order to protect another from a percieved "inconvenience". Like all other road users, cyclists may not wilfully obstruct others but are not required to inconvenience or endanger themselves to pander to someone elses sense of self importance. More importantly a cyclist is not required to allow someone else overtake if that overtaking is likely to result in danger to themselves.

Most cyclists who end up in hospital (85%), are there because of simple falls and collisions with roadside objects. The road edge is where these hazards are concentrated be it drains, gullies, collections of broken glass gravel etc, potholes etc etc. The most obvious way for a cyclist to avoid these hazards is not to cycle too close to the edge of the road. The general guide is to stay a least an arms length away from the road edge. This has the added advantage of providing an "escape zone" if a motorist tries to squeeze past in a dangerous or inconsiderate manner.

The most common forms of collisions between cars and bicycles happen at junctions and frequently involve a failure to yield by the drivers of turning cars. (Motorcyclists have the same issue) The recomended defensive cycling technique, having had regard for the nature and speed of following traffic, is for cyclists to adopt a prominent lane position while transiting junctions. It puts you out where you can be seen and also precludes someone in a car doing something silly like overtaking and then turning left immediately.

For the record, it is established in the literature that roadside "cycle facilities" tend to increase junction conflicts and tend to increase the rate of collisions between cars and cycles. Much of what passes as "cycle lanes" in Ireland is way too narrow and puts cyclists at risk of falls from being too close to the road edge and at risk of collision with motorists again through being too close to the road edge. They also tend to collect more broken glass than unmarked roads, which causes damage to the property (tyres) of the cyclists who choose to use them. If a cyclist is avoiding a cycle lane they are probably doing so for their own safety.

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Tractors do this all the time. They are considerate of the motorists they are holding up.

Have you ever seen a tractor get a puncture in the hard shoulder?

Mycroft H

hardCopy wrote: »

Have you ever seen a tractor get a puncture in the hard shoulder?

Nope.

Hard shoulder hold the detritus of the roads - glass, blown out tyres, gravel and all sorts of unfriendly fragments towards bicycle tyres. Same with many of the so called cycle lanes. I don't like changing tyres, it is a bad start to the morning.


And as for the cyclists holding the lane? Well, I'll pull in every now and then to let traffic past but on equal measure, cars must make a good effort of overtaking safely. Not 3 inches away or so close that I could touch the car passing me. I don't like it. Much as I don't like getting stuck behind someone.

And almost all cyclist I know don't like having cars sitting behind them, they will all endeavor to get them around them when safe to do so by waving them on when safe. Most of the time I get a friendly wave as they are going past

John_Rambo

smash wrote: »

I'll take back what I said earlier about you not being an idiot now.

Well, I was in no doubt about you when you admitted you were beeping at cyclists to get out of your way approaching a junction with traffic lights.

You then go on to display a shocking lack of knowledge of the rules of the road, in one case saying they don't apply!

(I still think there is more to your story by the way)

You give us drivers a bad name with that carry on.

nomdeboardie

smash wrote: »

John_Rambo wrote: »

smash wrote: »

Why, what have I missed?

Driving skills.

nice trolling. I'll take back what I said earlier about you not being an idiot now.

Aw c'mon...that's just a wonderfully constructed, ecomomical piece of humour

Dyr

rubadub wrote: »

how many pedestrians do you see sailing across roads illegally, lots, like the massive c**ts that they are.


[/I]

omgzer lolz you couldn't even make a like for like comparison because you know how weak it would be. No, my pedalling friends, you are the only group who appear to think that the whole country is your highway, not the pedestrians, not the car owners, not even the taximen and buses.

galwaycyclist

Bambi wrote: »

omgzer lolz you couldn't even make a like for like comparison because you know how weak it would be. No, my pedalling friends, you are the only group who appear to think that the whole country is your highway, not the pedestrians, not the car owners, not even the taximen and buses.

Hmmm your use of the phrase "appear to think" suggests a misunderstanding about how public roads work. As I understand it under Irish and British law pedestrians, cyclists and people on horseback are usually held to enjoy a common law right to make lawful use of public roads.

Motorists have no such right. In order to drive a motor vehicle on a public road in Ireland or Britain the driver must first obtain a licence under the provisions of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and the succeeding road traffic acts. Driving a motor vehicle on a public road is like owning a gun - it's inherently illegal unless the state gives you a specific permission to do it.

Dyr

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmmm your use of the phrase "appear to think" suggests a misunderstanding about how public roads work. As I understand it under Irish and British law etc etc

hmmm you appear to think that the "whole country" is a reference to only roads

Stark

Bambi wrote: »

hmmm you appear to think that the "whole country" is a reference to only roads

People are cycling in the countryside now? Somebody think of the children. :rolleyes:

Mycroft H

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmmm your use of the phrase "appear to think" suggests a misunderstanding about how public roads work. As I understand it under Irish and British law pedestrians, cyclists and people on horseback are usually held to enjoy a common law right to make lawful use of public roads.

Motorists have no such right. In order to drive a motor vehicle on a public road in Ireland or Britain the driver must first obtain a licence under the provisions of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and the succeeding road traffic acts. Driving a motor vehicle on a public road is like owning a gun - it's inherently illegal unless the state gives you a specific permission to do it.

Furthermore the Road Traffic Act gives status to bicycles of vehicles. And all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that

Irish Wolf

smash wrote: »

Beeping at someone who's causing an obstruction is not bad driving. And as I said I was stuck behind them for a few minutes, they caused a tailback. It just happened that when there was a chance to overtake, that a light turned red after a few yards.

And I didn't buzz them or overtake dangerously. But even they felt I had, it's no excuse to spit at and kick a car.

No real dog in this race, and not meaning to rake over old posts, though I am curious to know if you would have beeped someone on horseback in the same situation?

Irish Wolf

Irish Wolf wrote: »

No real dog in this race, and not meaning to rake over old posts, though I am curious to know if you would have beeped someone on horseback in the same situation?

Beep someone on horseback and you risk having a pair of horseshoes in your face!

SerialComplaint

smash wrote: »

And like I've said over and over. This doesn't mean they should have no consideration when they are causing an obstruction.

.

And that's the problem right there - cyclists aren't an 'obstruction' - they are traffic, they are road users.

smash

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And that's the problem right there - cyclists aren't an 'obstruction' - they are traffic, they are road users.

Lads, you need to get over it at this stage. Black and white of the story is that 2 cyclists caused a hold up and knew it, I beeped, they tried to damage my car and then fled. Even though I said it's the only bad encounter I've had with cyclists and others have agreed that generally they would move to avoid holding up traffic themselves, so far I've been deemed an inconsiderate, bad driver with no knowledge of the rules of the road. I've already added one muppet to my ignore list as a result of this thread and don't want to add more so I'm out.

This thread is starting to sound like an episode of "The Dragons Den" :pac:

The only bad experience I've had with cyclists was a few years ago when driving on a busy country lane late at night, half way around a corner I came up behind a "ninja" cyclist.

No lights, dressed in black, all I saw was the reflectors on his peddles! Oncoming traffic made him even harder to see! :eek:

I only just avoided running into him, at the same time also avoiding being hit up the rear!

Eventually I was able to overtake him.

When I went to overtake him I wound down the window and yelled "where are your lights!", his reply was "FUCK OFF" the twat didn’t realise just how close he was to ending up in hospital.

rubadub

Bambi wrote: »

omgzer lolz you couldn't even make a like for like comparison because you know how weak it would be.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Can you give me what you consider a more 'like for like comparison' and show me how weak it is?

In my experience pedestrians are far more likely to break the law, and very often endanger other road users by doing so.

hatrickpatrick

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And that's the problem right there - cyclists aren't an 'obstruction' - they are traffic, they are road users.

Even a car is an "obstruction" if it's blocking other road users from doing what they are perfectly entitled to do.
This is the issue - cyclists seems to think they are exempt from the rules which everyone else has to follow.

Incidentally, another walk to college this morning, almost hit by a cyclist outside Trinity getting to Dame Street (green man), saw 3 more breaking the lights turning from Dame Street to George's Street.
This bugs me so much. If the light is red then you can't effing go through it, end of story.
As I said before, I would fully support a requirement for bicycles to have registration numbers so as they'd be caught on camera or at least the gardai could follow it up if they were caught breaking the lights. It's just not on. IT's rude, inconsiderate and dangerous. Makes my daily walks to and from college absolutely nightmarish.

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said before, I would fully support a requirement for bicycles to have registration numbers so as they'd be caught on camera or at least the gardai could follow it up if they were caught breaking the lights.

And as I asked you before but you never answered, how do you propose we police this?

If the Gardai don't stop people breaking lights, what makes you think they'll check them for number plates?

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

And as I asked you before but you never answered, how do you propose we police this?

If the Gardai don't stop people breaking lights, what makes you think they'll check them for number plates?

Well I know my mum once got a summons when I was younger for breaking a red light. She's never dared to do it since.
How about a penalty points system similar to motorists? Seriously, cyclists are road users, they should be subject to the same penalties if they decide to behave in a dangerous manner. Would anyone have a problem with banning them from cycling for X amount of time after a certain number of ignored red lights?

Ray Palmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And that's the problem right there - cyclists aren't an 'obstruction' - they are traffic, they are road users.

Even a car is an "obstruction" if it's blocking other road users from doing what they are perfectly entitled to do.
This is the issue - cyclists seems to think they are exempt from the rules which everyone else has to follow.

Incidentally, another walk to college this morning, almost hit by a cyclist outside Trinity getting to Dame Street (green man), saw 3 more breaking the lights turning from Dame Street to George's Street.
This bugs me so much. If the light is red then you can't effing go through it, end of story.
As I said before, I would fully support a requirement for bicycles to have registration numbers so as they'd be caught on camera or at least the gardai could follow it up if they were caught breaking the lights. It's just not on. IT's rude, inconsiderate and dangerous. Makes my daily walks to and from college absolutely nightmarish.

What is so odd about you claiming cyclists are so dangerous not following the rules you seem to miss all the pedestrian breaking the lights.
As they break lights the most they should have licences and helmets too. The guards do not enforce cars breaking lights but you expect them to catch bikes.?
The basic issue is people want the rules enforced regardless of whether it is a real danger.

Korvanica

I think pedestrians should also have number plates.

So many just walk across the road without looking its unreal. At least if everyone has a numberplate on their back the guards will be able to see on video and then fine them.

Also, a walking Test and Licence, so people can walk in public, because there's so many people who clearly don't know where to walk.

And what is the deal with people bringing prams on footpaths? They are FOOT paths FFS. There should be heavy fines for this.

:rolleyes:

SerialComplaint

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Even a car is an "obstruction" if it's blocking other road users from doing what they are perfectly entitled to do.

Excuse me, what on earth does this mean? So when you're driving, and another car appears in your rear view mirror, do you automatically pull over to let them through because you've just become an 'obstruction'?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Incidentally, another walk to college this morning, almost hit by a cyclist outside Trinity getting to Dame Street (green man), saw 3 more breaking the lights turning from Dame Street to George's Street.
This bugs me so much. If the light is red then you can't effing go through it, end of story.
As I said before, I would fully support a requirement for bicycles to have registration numbers so as they'd be caught on camera or at least the gardai could follow it up if they were caught breaking the lights. It's just not on. IT's rude, inconsiderate and dangerous. Makes my daily walks to and from college absolutely nightmarish.

This kind of law-breaking is terrible indeed. I've roared at, threatened and cajoled cyclists for this kind of behaviour, just as I've roared at, threatened and cajoled peds and drivers for similar behaviours too.

I really don't think your registration number idea is going to work. Look at all the cars that drive through on amber and red lights - almost every set of lights I encounter on my journey has one or two cars going through after the lights turn red. Reg numbers don't really deter this.

A friend got fined €80 for breaking lights on her bike recently.

smash wrote: »

Lads, you need to get over it at this stage. Black and white of the story is that 2 cyclists caused a hold up and knew it, I beeped, they tried to damage my car and then fled. Even though I said it's the only bad encounter I've had with cyclists and others have agreed that generally they would move to avoid holding up traffic themselves, so far I've been deemed an inconsiderate, bad driver with no knowledge of the rules of the road. I've already added one muppet to my ignore list as a result of this thread and don't want to add more so I'm out.

The only thing to be 'gotten over' is your 'allaboutme.com' view of the world. You expect the world to show you consideration, and you show none to other road users. What goes around ,comes around.

hatrickpatrick

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What is so odd about you claiming cyclists are so dangerous not following the rules you seem to miss all the pedestrian breaking the lights.
As they break lights the most they should have licences and helmets too. The guards do not enforce cars breaking lights but you expect them to catch bikes.?
The basic issue is people want the rules enforced regardless of whether it is a real danger.

If a pedestrian crosses a road in a manner which endangers drivers, cyclists or other pedestrians, he or she should also be held responsible.
Are you defending cyclists breaking the lights or just indifferent to it? OR are you implying that running through pedestrian lights at full speed around corners such as that on George's street isn't dangerous? As I posted earlier in the topic, I witnessed a dog being hit in this way by a cyclist several weeks ago. The cyclist had absolutely no right to drive around that corner through a red light and could have seriously injured either the dog or its owner.

I don't see how people can defend such behavior?

hatrickpatrick

SerialComplaint wrote: »

.
I really don't think your registration number idea is going to work. Look at all the cars that drive through on amber and red lights - almost every set of lights I encounter on my journey has one or two cars going through after the lights turn red. Reg numbers don't really deter this.

Just to clarify something - I'm not talking about one or two cyclists going through a light which has just turned red, I'm talking about blatant ploughing through a light which has been red for ages, without stopping or even slowing down, and when they could have seen the red a mile away.
Literally just deciding "red light? Not for me"

There's no grey area whatsoever, it's blatant and deliberate light breaking. When done at a busy pedestrian crossing it could be lethal.

Chazz Michael Michaels

I'm a pedestrian, and barely a week goes by where I don't have a near miss by some ****wit bombing it down a footpath on his bike, breaking red lights at a crossing, etc.

I have zero sympathy for the plight of cyclists.

hatrickpatrick

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Excuse me, what on earth does this mean? So when you're driving, and another car appears in your rear view mirror, do you automatically pull over to let them through because you've just become an 'obstruction'?

Strawman? That's not "obstructing", "obstructing" would be stopping in the middle of the road or in ayellow box while the traffic jam mounts behind you, or driving miles under the speed limit and causing a tailback.

Sean Quagmire

cyclist wankers.

I mutter that every single time one gets near me on the road.

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I know my mum once got a summons when I was younger for breaking a red light. She's never dared to do it since.
How about a penalty points system similar to motorists? Seriously, cyclists are road users, they should be subject to the same penalties if they decide to behave in a dangerous manner. Would anyone have a problem with banning them from cycling for X amount of time after a certain number of ignored red lights?

That's not answering my question.

Bikes don't have number plates. How do you propose we get from this position, to a position where bikes have number plates? And how do you police it effectively?

Banning someone from cycling for breaking red lights is a tiny bit draconian, since you only receive a driving ban if you kill or cripple someone else. Plus it has all sorts of issues with common law in that it would be like banning someone from walking because they failed to wait for the green man.

The penalties set out for driving reflect the danger posed by a tonne of metal travelling at 50km/h. So it would make no sense to impose the same penalties on a soft bag of mostly water travelling at 25km/h.

Penalties sure. I'm all on for fixed penalties for law-breaking. How about something less draconian like a €50 fine for breaking a light where the Garda confiscates your bike till you arrive at the station with a receipt for your paid fine?
Surely that seems more logical and more easily implemented than some draconian 3 strikes system or creating huge quangos for regulating the licencing of bicycles?

CramCycle

Nothing even closely related to statistically related to relevant but what the hell:

CramCycles journey to work this morning:

Amber Gambling:

Cyclist - 2
Motor Vehicles - 20+ (I couldn't keep count)

RLJing

Cyclists - 2 (one turning left on a T, one was a muppet turning right on the T)
Motor Vehicles - 15 (that I counted but I was only keeping an eye on the lane of Traffic I was in)

Obstructing other road users by going to slowly

Cyclists - 1 (slowed me down, but I waited till it was safe to overtake, wasn't in anyway distressing or infuriating)
Motor Vehicles - 8 (3 parked in cycle lanes, 5 sitting in yellow boxes)

Using Mobile Phone while operating vehicle

Cyclist - 1 (not on my way into work but I seen one at lunchtime and thought I'd throw it in)
Motor Vehicles - 4 (all texting with their eyes off the road)

Using Footpad

Cyclist - 5 (2 were children, 1 with a disability, one who could have been elderly but was capable of using the road and another who shouldn't have been, young lad around 20)

Motor Vehicles - 3 (all parked and blocking pedestrians)

This was over less than 10 minutes and does not include the several pedestrians crossing the road illegally but I didn't include them.

Giving a guess, over the short stretch it was 1:6 in terms of numbers of cyclists:motorists

What does this tell you?

Nothing, only there are plenty of muppets using various methods of transport, I am sure if I went to the right part of town at the right time no car would have broken the law and several cyclists would have, all data can be painted the way you want it to if required

Basically, i should not leave for work early as it appears I have little to do with my time.

Chazz Michael Michaels

seamus wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I know my mum once got a summons when I was younger for breaking a red light. She's never dared to do it since.
How about a penalty points system similar to motorists? Seriously, cyclists are road users, they should be subject to the same penalties if they decide to behave in a dangerous manner. Would anyone have a problem with banning them from cycling for X amount of time after a certain number of ignored red lights?

That's not answering my question.

Bikes don't have number plates. How do you propose we get from this position, to a position where bikes have number plates? And how do you police it effectively?

Banning someone from cycling for breaking red lights is a tiny bit draconian, since you only receive a driving ban if you kill or cripple someone else. Plus it has all sorts of issues with common law in that it would be like banning someone from walking because they failed to wait for the green man.

The penalties set out for driving reflect the danger posed by a tonne of metal travelling at 50km/h. So it would make no sense to impose the same penalties on a soft bag of mostly water travelling at 25km/h.

Penalties sure. I'm all on for fixed penalties for law-breaking. How about something less draconian like a €50 fine for breaking a light where the Garda confiscates your bike till you arrive at the station with a receipt for your paid fine?
Surely that seems more logical and more easily implemented than some draconian 3 strikes system or creating huge quangos for regulating the licencing of bicycles?

How does the Garda catch you? It's uninforcible unless you can be ID'd, i.e. like a license plate. I'd imagine putting these on bikes would lead to a lot less light breaking, perhaps on a opar with motor vehicles. For? Against?

I wonder...

seamus

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

How does the Garda catch you? It's uninforcible unless you can be ID'd, i.e. like a license plate.

And if you have no number plate, how does he catch you to tell you that you need a number plate?

Surely if he can catch you for having no number plate, then he can just the same catch you for breaking a red light?

Chazz Michael Michaels

SerialComplaint wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Even a car is an "obstruction" if it's blocking other road users from doing what they are perfectly entitled to do.

Excuse me, what on earth does this mean? So when you're driving, and another car appears in your rear view mirror, do you automatically pull over to let them through because you've just become an 'obstruction'?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Incidentally, another walk to college this morning, almost hit by a cyclist outside Trinity getting to Dame Street (green man), saw 3 more breaking the lights turning from Dame Street to George's Street.
This bugs me so much. If the light is red then you can't effing go through it, end of story.
As I said before, I would fully support a requirement for bicycles to have registration numbers so as they'd be caught on camera or at least the gardai could follow it up if they were caught breaking the lights. It's just not on. IT's rude, inconsiderate and dangerous. Makes my daily walks to and from college absolutely nightmarish.

This kind of law-breaking is terrible indeed. I've roared at, threatened and cajoled cyclists for this kind of behaviour, just as I've roared at, threatened and cajoled peds and drivers for similar behaviours too.

I really don't think your registration number idea is going to work. Look at all the cars that drive through on amber and red lights - almost every set of lights I encounter on my journey has one or two cars going through after the lights turn red. Reg numbers don't really deter this.

A friend got fined €80 for breaking lights on her bike recently.

smash wrote: »

Lads, you need to get over it at this stage. Black and white of the story is that 2 cyclists caused a hold up and knew it, I beeped, they tried to damage my car and then fled. Even though I said it's the only bad encounter I've had with cyclists and others have agreed that generally they would move to avoid holding up traffic themselves, so far I've been deemed an inconsiderate, bad driver with no knowledge of the rules of the road. I've already added one muppet to my ignore list as a result of this thread and don't want to add more so I'm out.

The only thing to be 'gotten over' is your 'allaboutme.com' view of the world. You expect the world to show you consideration, and you show none to other road users. What goes around ,comes around.

To quote Andy Dufrane, how can you be so obtuse?

Anytime I come to a crossing, a minimum half of cyclists break the light. And you equate this with cars?

What planet are you on?

Chazz Michael Michaels

seamus wrote: »

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

How does the Garda catch you? It's uninforcible unless you can be ID'd, i.e. like a license plate.

And if you have no number plate, how does he catch you to tell you that you need a number plate?

Surely if he can catch you for having no number plate, then he can just the same catch you for breaking a red light?

Surely the same applies to cars, and yet regs appear. This really is a prime example of how cyclists feel like they are above regulations. No laws, just do whatever you want. And you wonder why everyone hates you...

smash

SerialComplaint wrote: »

The only thing to be 'gotten over' is your 'allaboutme.com' view of the world. You expect the world to show you consideration, and you show none to other road users. What goes around ,comes around.

I fail to see how you've come to this conclusion after an incident with 2 cyclists.

Chips Lovell

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

How does the Garda catch you? It's uninforcible unless you can be ID'd, i.e. like a license plate. I'd imagine putting these on bikes would lead to a lot less light breaking, perhaps on a opar with motor vehicles. For? Against?

I wonder...

Eh, there has been numerous people posting on the Cycling forum about getting done by the Guards for jumping read lights and getting a summons. Most of them have gotten fine when the case was heard.

The issue is not that Guards can't stop cyclists, it's that there aren't enough Guards doing it.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

How does the Garda catch you? It's uninforcible unless you can be ID'd, i.e. like a license plate. I'd imagine putting these on bikes would lead to a lot less light breaking, perhaps on a opar with motor vehicles. For? Against?

I wonder...

Eh, there has been numerous people posting on the Cycling forum about getting done by the Guards for jumping read lights and getting a summons. Most of them have gotten fine when the case was heard.

The issue is not that Guards can't stop cyclists, it's that there aren't enough Guards doing it.

Because it is too difficult... Durh

seamus

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Surely the same applies to cars, and yet regs appear. This really is a prime example of how cyclists feel like they are above regulations.

It's not really the same thing with cars. They've always had to carry identification on them, and a car without a number is very conspicuous. It's very difficult to hide the fact that you have no numberplate on a car.
Look at motorcycles - it's actually ridiculously easy to drive around without a numberplate on a motorbike, because they're less conspicuous and they don't have to stop and be stored in public places. So it would be even easier again to get away with no number plate on a bike.

You also have the added problem that it's actually quite difficult to stop a car unless you're in a car yourself. Even then, attempting to stop the car can be very dangerous. The same is not true of bicycles.

This is a prime example of a man with a hammer. The fact of the matter is that people will ignore the law if they can get away with it. It's nothing to do with cyclists in particular. So when people notice that the Gardai don't stop anyone for riding without a numberplate, the law will remain ignored.
All the numberplate idea does is lump a whole pile of waste and bureacracy in to try and enforce a law, with the net result of not only failing to enforce that law but creating another law which is ignored.

You still haven't addressed the question of how you propose to enforce the numberplate idea. "Cars have them" isn't an answer. Why don't cars get away with driving without a numberplate?