Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

Mr Simpson

Should pay some form of road tax

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you need to think that one through a bit.......

such a law would be riddled with inconsistencies and disproportionalities- someone who never gets a licence would never be punished - the potential consequences of me running a light etc are far more severe if I do it in a car compared to a bike so it would be wrong to attach the same level of punishment to both acts......

that's before you get to the usual problem of foreign licences etc

And cyclists are subject to fines - the glaring gap at the moment is lack of a mechanism for a Guard to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to a law-breaking cyclist.

Not really, they'd still be subject to the fines.

The law is the law. The consequences of me breaking a light in a truck are worse than doing it in a car, same punishments apply there.

Agree on the FPN's though, that was kind of my first point

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Jawgap wrote: »

such a law would be riddled with inconsistencies and disproportionalities- someone who never gets a licence would never be punished

Well you could figure out ways around it. For example, if someone doesn't hold a driving licence, you could attach a monetary value to points, say €250. So where a person holding a driving licence might get a €100 fine + 2 points, the unlicenced person is fined €600.

You could even have a record of these so you can impose larger penalties if they're taking the piss. So 12 "imaginary" points in 3 years and they have to pay the full value of all 12 points - €3k. If you get a 13th point, you double that. 14th point, double it again, etc.

Ray Palmer

The suggestion the cyclists are some way dangerous items on the streets is just plain silly.
If they were as dangerous as suggested their would be a lot more reports with cyclists involved. That also goes for cycling on the path. Pedestrians are involved in much more accidents. No need to prove it as it is just the bloodly obvious by lack of report.
Cyclists don't break every light as they would be dead if the did. Lots of light breaking is not a threat to any user. Minor road joining a major road with bus lane and cycle lane. Lights there to let minor road on to main road. I don't stop if red as the car would have to cross 2 lanes and enter the cycle lane for me to be a danger.
Never met a driver that doesn't speed and that kills a lot of people.

RainyDay

Could somebody please define what particular problem (ideally with some decent statistics) these traffic fines/road tax/insurance are aiming to fix?

Is this really a safety issue, or is it just a jealousy issue where some some narrow-minded car drivers don't like to see that cyclists getting home in half the time?

The King of Moo

Gods be with the days of good trolls.
These new ones don't even know not to say "This is not a troll thread."
I feel old.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

Could somebody please define what particular problem (ideally with some decent statistics) these traffic fines/road tax/insurance are aiming to fix?

Is this really a safety issue, or is it just a jealousy issue where some some narrow-minded car drivers don't like to see that cyclists getting home in half the time?

Well the purpose of fines is as it currently stands - to discourage dangerous, careless and thoughtless behaviour on the roads. Even if the stats show that a cyclist breaking a red light doesn't cause much danger, much like a vehicle parking on double yellow lines, it does often cause inconvenience and annoyance to other road users and so should be discouraged.

Don't know what the calls for road tax and insurance are. I think that we've built our society so much around cars now that we seem to think that cars are the natural and normal way to travel, and any other mode of travel which appears to have an advantage over cars should have that advantage removed and/or be discouraged.

galwaycyclist

seamus wrote: »

Don't know what the calls for road tax and insurance are. I think that we've built our society so much around cars now that we seem to think that cars are the natural and normal way to travel, and any other mode of travel which appears to have an advantage over cars should have that advantage removed and/or be discouraged.

Parhaps by placing them on special tracks that accord them with a level of priority commensurate with their lowly place in society?

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Poll is not multiple choice.

+1

Lol the poll is meaningless. Its just another rant about cyclists.

Knasher

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Parhaps by placing them on special tracks that accord them with a level of priority commensurate with their lowly place in society?

Excellent suggestion. We could also have it so that the passage of their betters sweep glass and stones and other clutter into these special tracks such that they never forget their place.

Chinasea

Firstly, where are all these cyclists cycling on paths? I can't remember when I saw one last. There seems to be some sort of national hysterical notion that all us cyclists are forgoing the roads to cycle on paths.

Second of all, how many of the motoring moaning posters on here don't wait for the green man when they cross the road at a pedestrian crossing. I'd say about 99%, and for the exact same reasons as do the cyclists. I am not advocating it, but I don't think either the cyclist or the pedestrian is doing it for kamikaze reasons - they do it because it’s possible and nobody dies. (mostly)

This country is a bloody disgrace when it comes to any sort of integrated sensible, infrastructure for bikes. WTF is taking so long.

I’d gladly pay a cycle tax if I thought we might get some sensible, reasonable bicycle lanes and a national mindset to match, and AND a locking device that prevents motorists from opening their car doors when stationary without checking their damned mirrors.

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLYMy argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists pay the same amount of road tax as motorists: nil.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

Can you produce any evidence, statistics from a reliable source to back this up? I believe the reason motorists pay insurance is because they cause so much harm and damage when they hit people. Cyclists don't because the risk is so low.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

This is already true.

Mr Simpson

Should pay some form of road tax

opti0nal wrote: »

This is already true.

Not really, Guards can't issue a fixed penalty notice to cyclists, they must be summonsed to court

RobFowl

I am not a cyclist

MarkMc wrote: »

Not really, Guards can't issue a fixed penalty notice to cyclists, they must be summonsed to court

In all seriousness fixed penalty notices for cyclists breaking the law would be a step forward for everyone. Waste of garda time taking someone to court for something that could and should be dealt with on the spot.

UCDVet

I'm a cyclist.
I don't own a car.

But I sure do hate cyclists. Not all of them, naturally, but so many of them are just ridiculously hypocritical.

One minute they want to be treated just like a car.
The next minute they don't.

It's ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I think that bicycles are a valid means of transportation and should be treated as such. That means things like having lights, using turn signals, following traffic laws. I'd fully support a bicycle license and mandatory bicycle insurance. I would expect the fees to be whatever is reasonable and appropriate given that bicycles are smaller/lighter/slower whatever. I'm sure some actuary somewhere can do the math.

Or go the other route and call them toys for children. Let anyone ride them, however they want, so long as they stay out of the road. The road is for big-people means of transportation.

But it really should be one or the other.

Even in the few places in Dublin where cyclists have their own lanes and traffic lights - they can't be arsed to follow them.

oppenheimer1

Should pay some form of road tax

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

Thats not actually true, it depends on what you eat. If your diet consisted entirely of fresh asparagus you would be emitting more carbon than if you drove.

RobFowl

I am not a cyclist

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm a cyclist.
I don't own a car.

But I sure do hate cyclists.

Are you a UCD trained Vet or a UCD grad who is a Vet(eran cyclist) like me

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

MarkMc wrote: »

Not really, Guards can't issue a fixed penalty notice to cyclists, they must be summonsed to court

....where they get fined and lose a day's wages waiting to be called. This is worse than an on-the-spot-fine, which drivers just treat as an expense. You're being pedantic.

But the OP really misses the point.

Thousands of people killed or injured, millions of euro in economic losses all caused by motorist behaviour. Bad cycliist behaviour is a mere irritant by comparison

Who does the OP pick on?: cyclists.

Mr Simpson

Should pay some form of road tax

Im not really being pedantic, a summons doesnt just cost the offender money, the Guard must be paid and courts aren't free either. Waste of time and money!!

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

MarkMc wrote: »

Im not really being pedantic, a summons doesnt just cost the offender money, the Guard must be paid and courts aren't free either. Waste of time and money!!

I suppose on-the-spot fines would be cheaper for both the cyclist and the authorities.

But, how has the on-the-spot fine regime worked out for motoring offences? 78% of motorists still break speed limits and we constantly see the other offenses such as failing to stop on amber (or even red), illegal parking, cell-phone use, no indicating etc.

Something tougher than a small fine is needed. And it's motorists, not cyclists who must be the priority if one looks at the death/injury statistics.

Emeraldy Pebbles

I'm a cyclist

seamus wrote: »

High-vis is a con because it leads to a false sense of security for road users. There was a thread on boards recently enough where a parent described how their young child nearly ran straight across the road in front of traffic because they believed their school-mandated high-vis jacket would protect them from a tonne of metal travelling down the road.

It's only a con if you think you can be careless while wearing high vis. I don't personally act carelessly whilst wearing my high vis vest. I also use back and front lights. The more things that make me visible, the better. Careless people will act carelessly whether or not they are lit up. I've seen plenty of people in my time nearly come a cropper while out cycling and walking because they were in complete darkness. I don't see how people would be more complacent with high vis than with just lights.

RainyDay

seamus wrote: »

Even if the stats show that a cyclist breaking a red light doesn't cause much danger, much like a vehicle parking on double yellow lines, it does often cause inconvenience and annoyance to other road users and so should be discouraged.

So is anybody seriously suggesting that we need to build a whole new administrative infrastructure to address 'inconvenience and annoyance'? There are lots of things that inconvenience and annoy me in this world, but I don't think we need extra laws and rules about people who put their feet on the Luas seats, or people who drop cigarette butts, or people who wait until they get to the till to dig out their purse.

Let's just enforce existing traffic laws.

TheIrishGrover

I'm, a cyclist and I say there should be fines for cyclists not using lights on their bikes.

However, regarding road tax: No. And the reason is cycle lanes: Whenever there isn't a cycle lane on a road drivers seem to think the road is theirs and theirs alone.

Now, if road tax pays for the upkeep and repair of roads then I will pay road tax when every single road in Ireland has a cycle lane in each direction. Of course this will never be able to be implemented. Also, since the size/engine capacity of a car and the damage it does to a road by its size is the defining factor in the value of road tax, what price would you put on a bicycle road tax since they consume no fuel and cause a miniscule (if even detectable) amount of damage to a road due to their size.
Most agree that the income from road tax is only a tiny part (if any part at all) of the money required to maintain roads and that most of the money comes from taxes. In which case: I've been paying my taxes for 20 years, where are my cycle lanes on every road in each direction? Again, it would be impossible to do this.
And what if the money from roads comes from taxes on fuel? Well, again, unless I can cycle along a cycle lane on any road in the country why should I pay a tax for others? I already pay a "fuel" tax by paying taxes on food as do we all. Do, again, where are my cycle lanes in each direction on every single public road in the country?

Obviously these points are more for a laugh than serious points but I don't think there should be a road tax for cyclists but I certainly think there should be a fine for not using lights at night........ I thought there was actually

Lannigan

Should pay some form of road tax

As a cyclist I say fine them if they break the rules of the road. Ensure they all have lights front and rear and high vis jackets. I also agree with helmets for cyclists. Fine them for non compliance.
The rules of the road are for everyone to obey and in the absence of adequate cycle roads in Ireland they have to obey the rules.

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

Lannigan wrote: »

As a cyclist I say fine them if they break the rules of the road. Ensure they all ....high vis jackets. I also agree with helmets for cyclists. Fine them for non compliance.
The rules of the road are for everyone to obey

Let's just be clear here: there is no law requiring people to wear high-vis jackets or helmets.

We do have laws requiring people to obey speed limits and stop at amber/red traffic signals, they're not adequately enforced.

Let's enforce existing laws.

gbee

Should pay insurance

I could only vote once.

As we seem to be setting up a private road way for cyclists, and same is robbing motorists from parking and even stopping places, cyclist now enter a new world and should be fined and pay separate road tax and insurance, along the lines of motor cycle insurance IMO.

fasttalkerchat

Fix the poll.


I think they should pay a tiny amount for insurance just to cover if they injure someone or damage property but claim they cant afford to pay.
No tax because they don't damage roads or harm environment.
Fines for cycling too far out in the lane of for dangerous cycling as with a car.
Cyclists should be fined for not stopping to let traffic flow or for the safety of pedestrians when on a footpath.

anncoates

Should pay some form of road tax

Not bothered if they pay tax but +1000000 for them either being issued fines and/or points for transgressions and rude or dangerous behaviour. Perhaps a new,set of points offences tailored for cyclists.

ThisRegard

Points for being rude? Just when you think such threads can't get more farcical.....

fasttalkerchat

ThisRegard wrote: »

Points for being rude? Just when you think such threads can't get more farcical.....

I assume he meant rudeness in a driving context. Things like not signalling or pulling out infront of a vehicle, not farting or having no manners.

anncoates

Should pay some form of road tax

ThisRegard wrote: »

Points for being rude? Just when you think such threads can't get more farcical.....

Bad choice of word.

I mean the lower scale of dangerous riding or road use.

All I'm saying is punish bad road behaviour no matter what kind of user you are.

I understand cyclists require more lanes hut it still doesn't excuse bad road behaviour.

fasttalkerchat

Fines for things like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-20343097

Pherekydes

RobFowl wrote: »

Are you a UCD trained Vet or a UCD grad who is a Vet(eran cyclist) like me

He's a member of the Union of Community Development Volunteers and is an extra terrestrial.

doozerie

gbee wrote:

As we seem to be setting up a private road way for cyclists, and same is robbing motorists from parking and even stopping places, cyclist now enter a new world and should be fined and pay separate road tax and insurance, along the lines of motor cycle insurance IMO.

Private roadway for cyclists? No, many cycle tracks share footpath space with pedestrians, which is a recipe for disaster for both parties but conveniently has no impact on motorists. Many other cycle tracks consist of a painted line on a shared road which some motorists are happy to ignore with impunity. Where is this "private road way" that you refer to?

Besides, I never asked for any cycle tracks, and neither did many of the people that I know that cycle regularly. Many of us don't even want them. Should motorists pay extra motor tax (it's *not* "road tax") because of roads being built elsewhere in the country that they have no desire or intention of using? If not, then why expect cyclists to pay extra for sub-standard cycling infrastructure that councils seem to put in for no more reason than to tick the "catered for cyclists" box on someone's form?

Incidentally, us cyclists already pay for the rubbish cycle tracks via our taxes, just like we pay for the roads with our taxes too - they are not "your" roads, you know, they are "our" roads, so your suggestion that cyclists are somehow "robbing" motorists of anything is pure hysterical nonsense.

Monty - the one and only

In the 10 years that i cycled, I had gone through 14 helmets and 12 hits from cars, mostly minor(4 of which were my fault, I'll admit) and 1 major that I was lucky to walk away from with just a few bruised ribs, the garda that witnessed that one thought I should be dead.

Cycling in this city is taking your life into your hands with the way most motorists drive.

RainyDay

Monty - the one and only wrote: »

In the 10 years that i cycled, I had gone through 14 helmets and 12 hits from cars, mostly minor(4 of which were my fault, I'll admit) and 1 major that I was lucky to walk away from with just a few bruised ribs, the garda that witnessed that one thought I should be dead.

Cycling in this city is taking your life into your hands with the way most motorists drive.

Honestly, change your cycling style. If you're getting one hit from a car each year, you're doing something wrong.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Fines for cycling too far out in the lane of for dangerous cycling as with a car.
Cyclists should be fined for not stopping to let traffic flow or for the safety of pedestrians when on a footpath.

In other words, keep them out of my way. I don't want to be stuck behind a cyclist. I want to rush past and sit in a line of other cars, which for some reason is far more acceptable than sitting behind a cyclist.

Be careful what you wish for. If you make things even worse for cyclists, more cyclists will get back into their cars. And you'll be stuck sitting behind them in traffic.

crusher000

I'm a cyclist

I'm a member of cycling Ireland through a club so I do pay insurance. Another mis conseption by some of the ill informed on boards that cyclists don't pay insurance. Club will also punsih anyone whom doesn't obey traffic lights whilst out on club cycle.

Monty - the one and only

RainyDay wrote: »

Honestly, change your cycling style. If you're getting one hit from a car each year, you're doing something wrong.

4 of those times I was in a cycle lane and got rammed off the road because some twat in a car wanted to avoid a speed bump.... the last time I got pasted by a drunk driver at 3 in the afternoon... cant say cycling style could avoid much of that.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

In other words, keep them out of my way. I don't want to be stuck behind a cyclist. I want to rush past and sit in a line of other cars, which for some reason is far more acceptable than sitting behind a cyclist.

Be careful what you wish for. If you make things even worse for cyclists, more cyclists will get back into their cars. And you'll be stuck sitting behind them in traffic.

They are not stuck in traffic they are traffic!
http://static.neatorama.com/images/2011-04/stuck-in-traffic.jpg

fasttalkerchat

RainyDay wrote: »

In other words, keep them out of my way. I don't want to be stuck behind a cyclist. I want to rush past and sit in a line of other cars, which for some reason is far more acceptable than sitting behind a cyclist.

Be careful what you wish for. If you make things even worse for cyclists, more cyclists will get back into their cars. And you'll be stuck sitting behind them in traffic.

I don't want to sit behind any slow moving vehicle. Having push bikes on the road isn't ideal but its better than having them sharing with pedestrians so all we can do is legislate to make it workable... part of that is making sure that they do not hold up the flow of traffic more than necessary.
If I drive at 15mph on a 60 road I would get pulled over and maybe points... if a cyclist does it allowances should be made but not if they purposefully sit out to stop overtaking or refuse to pull over to let cars pass.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

This is not a trolling thread, but mods, feel free to lock etc. if you feel this thread might get out of hand, or if it has been done before. Let's not this turn into a cyclist-hating thread or flame each other. Keep it civil or face the wrath of the moderators :P

I'm driving now just over a year. My main journey is from the Fingal area into the City centre. And without doubt the two MAJOR hazards I encounter each day are cyclists and taxi drivers.

There are a number of EXTREMELY dangerous things they do, but there is also some absolutely annoying things they do, which pisses me off no send.

1) Many millions were spent on developing cycling lanes parallel with paths. This decision was taken in order to reduce the traffic congestion caused by cyclists, and to avoid cyclist - motor incidents/accidents. If there is a cycling lane available, get the **** off the road. Your slowing down traffic causing congestion, your putting yourself at risk, and our tax money went to build them for you.

2) Cyclists are subject to the rules of the road. I'm not sure why they think they are not. This includes being in the correct position to take turns, signalling for turns and also adhering to traffic lights.

I've been involved in three relatively serious incidents when a cyclist has ploughed into me as a pedestrian crossing at lights, when I have the right of way.

Guards outside of Trinity college regularly pull in cyclists for breaking the lights there, and I've witnessed them handing out fines, so it does seem it can happen.

Stop at lights, indicate correctly, and don't weave in and out of traffic.

3) Hi-vis vest or LED blinkers. It should be an offence to cycle at night without these.I cant believe people are stupid enough to cycle with nothing to highlight themselves on the roads.


My main gripe is cyclists being on the road, with a cycling lane just to the side of it on the path, clearly designated as a cycling lane. There is ALWAYS some eejit off the turn from Phibsborough heading to Finglas on the road, when there is a big cycling lane on the path. This just clocks traffic up that causes tailbacks, people missing lights, and has a knock on effect.

A close second is weaving out when a bus stops and they want to overtake. To be honest I'm actually starting to wonder why I'm shunting my car over sideways to avoid them, and risk taking damage to my car, from their rash decision making. And not to forget, possible damage to another vehicle from me having to veer sideways when a cyclist decides to shoot out to skip around a bus ( taximen are worse for this)

If your in the lane where traffic has halted, look over your right shoulder, ensure the way is clear, signal then move out. Moving out sporadically to skip a parked buss, one day you are going to get milled, and it will be your fault.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

They are allowed to cycle two abreast.

Where as anyone knows that they should drop back into single file when they are causing congestion to traffic, its moral practice.

But unfortauntely like the original poster, I regularly drive a stretch of back roads during the weekend where cyclists enjoy their weekend cycle, at a canter, causing massive congestion.

Chips Lovell

Sigh.

There is no longer any legal obligation to use a cycle lane.

fasttalkerchat

crusher000 wrote: »

I'm a member of cycling Ireland through a club so I do pay insurance. Another mis conseption by some of the ill informed on boards that cyclists don't pay insurance. Club will also punsih anyone whom doesn't obey traffic lights whilst out on club cycle.

Never heard of bike insurance.
Does it cover damage to a car and injury to a pedestrian?
How much does it cost?

fasttalkerchat

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Sigh.

There is no longer any legal obligation to use a cycle lane.

But why wouldn't you? Unless you are about to turn right, surely it makes no sense not to use a cycle lane.

Chips Lovell

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Does it cover damage to a car and injury to a pedestrian?
How much does it cost?

Yes, it is personal accident and public liability insurance. It only covers you if you are training or participating in an event.

It comes as part of membership. Which starts at €25 per annum.

Chips Lovell

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

But why wouldn't you? Unless you are about to turn right, surely it makes no sense not to use a cycle lane.

Well, as the government said when they announced their intention to repeal the mandatory use law "it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained", doesn't suit groups of cyclists, and can often force cyclists into dangerous situations.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Sigh.

There is no longer any legal obligation to use a cycle lane.

You shouldn't have to be "legally" obliged to use one. I'm not mentioning the fact they were a monumental waste of money.

It would just be courteous, and to be honest, just what I'd expect of a relatively intelligent human being, that if you are causing delays on a relatively major rush hour stretch of road, that you move into the cycling lane, which is located about five feet to the left of you, where you receive no pressure, and cause no stress to those behind.

There is no "legal" obligation to stay out of a bus lane during out of hours, but if I feel I'm being pressured by the pace of the traffic, I'll move into the bus lane.

It's called having a clue, being aware. And that seems to be an evident problem. While there is obviously no figures or facts to hand, going on first hand experience from my office, where the vast majority are cyclists. They don't have driving licenses, they don't own cars, they are not versed on the rules of the road. SO personally, I think there is an issue there, that we allow cyclists onto the road without any sort of testing or restraint.

I can 100% see why the above is a ridiculous idea, but considering the stupid amount of crap we are putting provisional drivers through now, I don't see why other methods of transportation, available to use the road, shouldn't be subject to the same.

On the way home today, I'm most likely going to engage I'd say two emergency stops, maybe three sporadic swerves and possibly 10 minutes total frustration, due to cyclists who are causing disruption, hazard and risk, where it is completely unnecesarry to do so.

fasttalkerchat

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yes, it is personal accident and public liability insurance. It only covers you if you are training or participating in an event.

It comes as part of membership. Which starts at €25 per annum.

Ah okay, I thought it was something like car insurance.

Chips Lovell

You're right. No cyclist has ever driven a car. Ever.

But yes. They were a monumental waste of money. I'd have preferred if they just spent the money on maintaining the roads.

fasttalkerchat

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well, as the government said when they announced their intention to repeal the mandatory use law "it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained", doesn't suit groups of cyclists, and can often force cyclists into dangerous situations.

So if a cyclist is on the road and no cars have been able to pass for 10 mins do you agree that it is courteous that they pull over and let traffic flow?

How do you feel this "courtesy" could be enforced?(Assuming you agree)