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

Chips Lovell

Most cyclists I know do. Although there are frequent differences between where a cyclist considers it safe to pass and where a motorist might. And on what a reasonable length of time is. The issue usually crops up with groups of cyclists. I've yet to encounter a situation where a single cyclist has "held up" traffic for any length of time.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

I've been driving for 8 years, motorbikes and cars. I don't forget the rules of the road when I get on my bike. What makes you think cyclists don't have licenses and pay road tax already?

doozerie

TheDoc wrote:

...and our tax money went to build [cycle tracks] for you.

Yes, our (yours *and* mine) money went to build them, just like our (mine too) money went to build the roads that you seem to feel an irrational sense of exclusive ownership towards.

And as for them being built for me, implying that they were built for the benefit of a cyclist such as me, they weren't. If they were built for my benefit they wouldn't bring me up the inside of left-only lanes, they wouldn't spit me back onto the road at blind junctions, they wouldn't put me onto a path shared with pedestrians, etc. The current largely shambolic, and dangerous, cycle lanes were built for the benefit of the motorist by trying to remove cyclists from the road, but then you already knew that.

TheDoc wrote:

2) Cyclists are subject to the rules of the road.

Correct.

dub_skav

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

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)

I don't mean to have a go here - you seem quite reasonable.

But, have you actually ever seen a situation where there is a cycle lane to the left and cars are held up for 10 minutes by a single cyclist?

I ask because people seem to get very stressed out by delays in traffic, as a result they exaggerate the difficulties that they meet. So, after being delayed in heavy traffic for a long time, a driver meets a cyclist and is delayed for 30 seconds, in their head this becomes "That stupid cyclist delayed me for 5 minutes and had no helmet, wasn't using cycle lane, no hi vis etc".

This is a very them and us attitude which has no real benefit.

In truth, cycle lanes can be very dangerous. Since the mandatory use was removed I now skip a cycle lane on my way home that caused me to leave the road and cross a side road with poor visibility for everyone, then rejoin the main road in a car's blind spot.
This is very badly planned and dangerous and I am glad that I am not obliged to use it anymore.
So in summary, I use the cycle lanes that are useful and skip the ones that are dangerous - as I am now legally entitled to do

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

hardCopy wrote: »

I've been driving for 8 years, motorbikes and cars. I don't forget the rules of the road when I get on my bike. What makes you think cyclists don't have licenses and pay road tax already?

Why are people intepreting that I said cyclists don't understand the rules of the road, or have never driven? I' never used it in a broad sweeping statement, I used it as a select example of first hand experience.

Of course there are cyclists who drive, and chose to cycle for financial, environment or whatever reason.

Incase my original post was ambiguous, I'm not assuming cyclists cannot drive/do not drive/ or have no clue about safe road use, in the broad sense.

My point is that my experience of driving in and out of the city centre each day is that there is clearly a relatively large proportion that don't. Clearly visible by the rash decisions and poor decisions that are consistently made.

As for Vlads comments. The corner turn just through Phibsorough shopping centre, heading towards Finglas, is a daily example of cyclists not recognising them being on the road rather then the cycling lane, has a knock on effect to congestion on that route.

yop

I'm a cyclist

Here we go again.....

Few points, the poll is daft and is broke.
The OP's argument and some of the OP's points are off the wall and in my own opinion are only there to incite.

I do agree that cyclists should get fixed penalties for not adhering to the rules of the road, that said check how many people are on mobiles or break lights etc on your way home tonight, it would bale out the banks with all the fines. Then again who is going to administer the fines, the guards aren't about 1/2 the time.

For cyclists holding up traffic etc, Sunday drivers are plenty and don't limit it to Sundays.
Of course the cyclist shouldn't hold up traffic, but neither should Sunday drivers or tractors.

As per every single cyclist/driver thread it will descend into it been closed eventually.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

If you're performing more than one emergency stop per year, then your driving style is dangerous and I would suggest that you would find an advanced driving course very beneficial.

I somehow manage to conduct 99.999% of my driving journeys without emergency stops or sudden swerves.

When I cycle, the only delays are caused by drivers and busses in my way.

Chips Lovell

TheDoc wrote: »

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

BTW, if that's your typical car journey, then I'd suggest that, like the bloke who's been knocked off his bike 14 times in 12 years, the problem may be more to do with you rather than them.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

yop wrote: »

Here we go again.....

Few points, the poll is daft and is broke.
The OP's argument and some of the OP's points are off the wall and in my own opinion are only there to incite.

I do agree that cyclists should get fixed penalties for not adhering to the rules of the road, that said check how many people are on mobiles or break lights etc on your way home tonight, it would bale out the banks with all the fines. Then again who is going to administer the fines, the guards aren't about 1/2 the time.

For cyclists holding up traffic etc, Sunday drivers are plenty and don't limit it to Sundays.
Of course the cyclist shouldn't hold up traffic, but neither should Sunday drivers or tractors.

As per every single cyclist/driver thread it will descend into it been closed eventually.

Assuming it derails into both sides feeling they need to descent into " o but you guys do it too!" and childish defence tactics.

Is there any statistical data that brings anything to light in terms of cyclists on our roads, or as someone mentioned did this thread come out of one individual having one bad incident.

In my view, and remembering I'm only on the road a year, so there are others that have more experience, I'd be shocked to find out it wasn't a significant enough figure to warrant a proper debate.

Chips Lovell

seamus wrote: »

When I cycle, the only delays are caused by drivers and busses in my way.

In fairness, the buses really should pull in out of the way and let us by.

drdeadlift

On my cycle home yesterday i was the only cyclist to obey the lights,i felt like a tool as everyone went on by the red light..its really annoying!
There is an answer to the cyclist vs everyone else on the road tho

yop

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

Assuming it derails into both sides feeling they need to descent into " o but you guys do it too!" and childish defence tactics.

Is there any statistical data that brings anything to light in terms of cyclists on our roads, or as someone mentioned did this thread come out of one individual having one bad incident.

In my view, and remembering I'm only on the road a year, so there are others that have more experience, I'd be shocked to find out it wasn't a significant enough figure to warrant a proper debate.

What you will find its always the drivers who are starting these threads. I have yet to come across a thread title "When will drivers get fined for X actions against cyclists".

As I said on another thread, maybe the driver isn't happy that the cyclist is making more headway in traffic, looks a bit fitter than them and can wear lyrca!
Its a bit like the young lad next door, "Ah a lovely young fella that", until 5 years later he is driving a new car and has plenty of money, then jealousy sits in

Its a 2 way street here, cyclists need to learn the rules of the road and motors need to understand that cyclists have as much a right on the road as them.

As for 2 emergency stops!!! I'm driving for nearly 20 years and I would say I have barely have 2 emergency stops, so either your leaning towards exaggeration a tad or need to assess your own driving style.

yop

I'm a cyclist

drdeadlift wrote: »

On my cycle home yesterday i was the only cyclist to obey the lights,i felt like a tool as everyone went on by the red light..its really annoying!
There is an answer to the cyclist vs everyone else on the road tho

And on my way home probably 3 or 4 cars + kept going through the change to red, probably met 10 drivers on the phones and was passed by a few doing well over the speed limit.

So unless the guards are out there to enforce law on both cyclist and motorist then these threads will be regular.

vektarman

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

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'd have to disagree with this, I'm a cyclist , motorcyclist and car driver and I'm versed on the rules of the road..

yop

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

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..

Only seen this now! You are kidding I presume with a comment like that?

lima

drdeadlift wrote: »

On my cycle home yesterday i was the only cyclist to obey the lights,i felt like a tool as everyone went on by the red light..its really annoying!
There is an answer to the cyclist vs everyone else on the road tho

I recently moved back to Ireland and started cycling to work and I am shocked by how many cyclists break red lights. The bloody Irony that they wear high-viz vests and then saunter through red lights without a care in the world is unbelievable. I stop at every single red light as cyclists pass me by, but now every time one does it I should out 'Red Light!!' - it's great to see their 'in denial' reactions. One (who looked like a courier and acted like he owned the roads) done it the other day and after I shouted at him he shouted some obscenity back and spat down on the ground, as if to show that he was cool in a schoolboy way.. they are in denial that they should obey the rules of the road.


At the end of the day, they are the ones who will injure themselves so that doesn't bother me. It's the bad rep other cyclists like myself get because of these people.

I'm strongly considering getting a high viz vesy saying 'obey the red lights cyclists'

drdeadlift

yop wrote: »

And on my way home probably 3 or 4 cars + kept going through the change to red, probably met 10 drivers on the phones and was passed by a few doing well over the speed limit.

So unless the guards are out there to enforce law on both cyclist and motorist then these threads will be regular.

We all know that the problem lies on more sides than just the cyclist.

yop

I'm a cyclist

drdeadlift wrote: »

We all know that the problem lies on more sides than just the cyclist.

And here lies the problem, throughout society whether it be cyclists, motorist, pedestrians, drinkers etc. There will always be a section who won't adhere to the rules and of course they will be more obvious than the others.
Its up to the rest of us to try and show example as best we can, but if you try and drive at the speed limit, what will happen?
The same applies to cyclists, you might get 5 who stop at a red, but then 1 or 2 break and the others think "Oh lets follow".

Until enforcement happens, whether it be motorists or cyclists or pedestrians, its going to be an annoyance.

But common sense needs to prevail in some of these threads/debates, some of the gunk been typed on posts here, its a wonder their fingers don't go on strike!

Enjoy your drive/cycle home!

crusher000

I'm a cyclist

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

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

It's public liability so the cyclist isn't covered for personel injury but dose cover them against damage they may do to a car or injury to a person they collide with. If you are a member of cycling Ireland your insured and is included in the cost of siging up. Your bike is not insured but some insurance policies will allow you to insure it on house insurance.

gbee

Should pay insurance

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

In fairness, the buses really should pull in out of the way and let us by.

You actually have a point there, as long as the cyclist is competent, I don't really care what he does, ride on the footpath, go through red lights and so on, leave him off IMO.

The worst is passing a difficult and perhaps wobbly cyclist and then have him waiting for you again at the next traffic lights.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

yop wrote: »

Only seen this now! You are kidding I presume with a comment like that?

I'm going to relook at that comment in my psot

Because I'm 99.9% sure that sentence is part of a wider context, where I mention while I don't know any stats, the first hand experience I have is of the cyclists within my department in work,

Hold on a second till I make sure I psoted that

EDIT***

Yeah its there, but it was in seperate paragraphs so I can see how its ambigous, I've edited the paragraphing and highlighted. i'm not a moron fellas


I also appreciate the comments from the guys above indicating the issue might be with my driving. I'm not going to blow smoke out my arse, I'm driving a year. But I did attend 15 driving lessons and completed and advanced driving course as you mentioned.

I deploy defensive driving mostly throughout the city centre. Emergency braking isn't slamming on the brakes to a screech and a hault, it is having to deploy an immediate stop, most often or not caused by an unexpected occurance. If I'm on my phone texting and need to emergency stop due to not paying attention, I would take your point.

But when it is to avoid hitting a cyclist who has shot out from behind a bus to skip it, or has come around from the blindside of a car, waiting to merge into oncoming traffic, it happens. And this will lead to frustration. And at this point I'd point out that I rate Taxi Drivers as a much higher risk in my view then a cyclist, but its more concerning for me about cyclists because of the immediate risk of the fact if I hit one, they won't come off well from it.

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.

Jawgap

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

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)

Why should it be 'enforced' and if it should for whose benefit should it be enforced? A car driver is a road user like everyone else - if the basis for arguing that they get better treatment is because they pay a bit more into the general pool of taxation through 'motor' tax, then what about those who pay even more than they do for example transport / haulage companies? Should cars pull in to let trucks through?

I agree it would be courteous, but not on a commute - I leave early enough to get to work on time and unless I've missed it, there is no rule or law that applies a hierarchy to road users' convenience - your convenience does not trump mine and it certainly never trumps my safety.

If you are regularly being held up then you are not leaving early enough.

On a leisure spin I would (and do) pull in to let traffic pass, but generally I plan those along relatively quiet routes where there is less of an issue.

acotone

Typical discussion for a country that is only getting used to cyclists in the last few years.
I'm from Holland and there cyclists use no helmets, special reflective clothing, pay no tax...they are being fined by police when running red lights or having no cycle lights.

RainyDay

lima wrote: »

I recently moved back to Ireland and started cycling to work and I am shocked by how many cyclists break red lights.

Just curious to know if you only see cyclists breaking the law? Do you ever see drivers on the phone or texting or surfing while driving? Do you ever see drivers turning without indicating? Do you ever see drivers breaking the speed limit?

Monty - the one and only wrote: »

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.

Learn to cycle defensively. Get a mirror. Look over your shoulder at the traffic behind you. One hit a year is way too much.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

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.

Cyclists don't 'hold up the flow of traffic'. They ARE traffic. They are dead right to 'purposefully sit out to stop overtaking' where there isn't enough room to safely overtake.

Really, it's not that big a deal. Hold back for 5 or 10 seconds and you'll find a spot to overtake safely, and rush to the next queue of cars. And ask yourself why you don't expect the other cars in front of you to pull over and let you pass.

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

Excuse me! YOUR tax money????

Cyclists pay tax. Cyclists pay income tax, capital gains tax, customs and excise duties, property taxes to local authorities who maintain the roads, VAT on all their purchases, including bikes, bike repairs, bike accessories etc etc. Cyclists pay tax.

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

Get a bike and try that 'big cycling lane' just once, and you'll work it out. It is probably strewn with broken glass. At this time of year, it has a thick carpet of slippery, mushy leaves for a month or two. It probably has lampposts and traffic signs mounted right in the middle of the lane. It is peppered with pedestrians, including the sneaky ones on run their dog lead right across the cycle lane like piano wire. Just try it once, and you'll work out why cyclists don't use it.

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

Look around you, Doc. Cyclists don't hold up traffic. Take 5 or 10 seconds and you'll get past the cyclists, and you'll find yourself sitting in a queue of cars. It's cars that hold up cars, not cyclists.

TheDoc wrote: »

They don't have driving licenses, they don't own cars, they are not versed on the rules of the road.

Probably the dumbest single comment on the thread. Most cyclists have cars sitting at home in their driveway. Cyclists are not some strange alien race, they're just people who don't like sitting in traffic.

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

Really Doc - learn to drive. Two emergency stops a day is down to your driving, not any other road user.

galwaycyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

I
I also appreciate the comments from the guys above indicating the issue might be with my driving. I'm not going to blow smoke out my arse, I'm driving a year. But I did attend 15 driving lessons and completed and advanced driving course as you mentioned.

How many cycling lessons did you get? And of the "driving" lessons above, how many of them covered cycling or vulnerable road users generally?

FanadMan

Should pay some form of road tax

First off, I'm not a cyclist. If a cyclist breaks the rules of the road, I think they should be fined. As there is no licence they cannot be given points so the fine should be fairly hefty. After the word gets around, the country would see a dramatic fall in cyclists breaking red lights and so on. However, if there was proper cycle lanes in place that are well maintained, there would be no need for any hastle or fines.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

yop wrote: »

As for 2 emergency stops!!! I'm driving for nearly 20 years and I would say I have barely have 2 emergency stops, so either your leaning towards exaggeration a tad or need to assess your own driving style.

I'll apologise in advance if I've maybe mislabelled the phrase wrong.

When I say emergency stop, I press both the brake and the clutch to bring me to a faster halt then just pressing the brake.

And on reflection it probably is an exaggeration, and maybe just because I've had two run ins with cyclists this week, but it seems an all too frequent occurance having to constantly deal with cyclists firing out of nowhere.

I'm always open to driving tips and advice, as I said I'm only on the road a year but its not like I'm tearing around the city centre

lima

RainyDay wrote: »

Just curious to know if you only see cyclists breaking the law? Do you ever see drivers on the phone or texting or surfing while driving? Do you ever see drivers turning without indicating? Do you ever see drivers breaking the speed limit?

Mmm, sometimes. maybe 4% of all drivers I see. I saw a guy watching a movie on his laptop on the passenger seat at the lights the other day!

About 70-80% of ALL cyclists I see in Dublin city centre go through red lights. I am literally the only one who stops at exactly the line. Those 70-80% all think they are invincible. Well they are not, and they are giving me a bad name by consistently breaking lights. I see it as an Irish thing - 'ah sure I won't get caught' mentality that destroyed any chance of this place being a fair, civilized society.

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

RainyDay wrote: »

Excuse me! YOUR tax money????

Cyclists pay tax. Cyclists pay income tax, capital gains tax, customs and excise duties, property taxes to local authorities who maintain the roads, VAT on all their purchases, including bikes, bike repairs, bike accessories etc etc. Cyclists pay tax.

Its a broad statement, obviously cyclists pay tax. Point being I paid for it as well. Obviously its being a massive waste of money

Get a bike and try that 'big cycling lane' just once, and you'll work it out. It is probably strewn with broken glass. At this time of year, it has a thick carpet of slippery, mushy leaves for a month or two. It probably has lampposts and traffic signs mounted right in the middle of the lane. It is peppered with pedestrians, including the sneaky ones on run their dog lead right across the cycle lane like piano wire. Just try it once, and you'll work out why cyclists don't use it.

I cycled to and from work for 18 months, which had access to a cycle lane for a large portion of the journey. There was no issue with the track, although I accept from other posts here they are generally in bits, which I didn't realise if I'm honest.

Look around you, Doc. Cyclists don't hold up traffic. Take 5 or 10 seconds and you'll get past the cyclists, and you'll find yourself sitting in a queue of cars. It's cars that hold up cars, not cyclists.

I've given a specific example of where it happens, and the knock on effect it has on the congestion behind. While I accept the cycle track might not be in the best condition ( going by general statement on tracks here). The lane towards Finglas is one lane, with two in the opposite direction. To perform a safe overtake cuts very fine with oncoming traffic, and I understand why most people are not comfortable doing it, and I know I'm not comfortable being a few inches away from a cyclist on an overtake.

Probably the dumbest single comment on the thread. Most cyclists have cars sitting at home in their driveway. Cyclists are not some strange alien race, they're just people who don't like sitting in traffic.

You among others have misread and misinterpreted my post. I've gone back to edit to ensure its clearly visible. So we will just skip this, since you latched onto a soundbite and ran with, although I can see how it could happen from the paragraph break.

Really Doc - learn to drive. Two emergency stops a day is down to your driving, not any other road user.

An emergency stop, to my understanding, and what I refer to it as, and feel free to correct, is applying pressure to breaks and the clutch to ensure a quicker stop and keeping the car from cutting out.

The alternative, to were a cyclist comes out from behind a car waiting to merge onto oncoming traffic, is for me to mill the cyclist.

The assumption being made here is my car is travelling at fast pace. Past Oscar Square there is a T-Juntion that when I turn right, there is another junction for traffic merging from the elft. Frequently cyclists will fire out from behind cars waiting to merge, to keep to the left (where cars are close to the kirb) or just cut accross traffic to turn right.

An emergency stop can be performed at really any speed of travel, but perhaps its most frequently associated with reacting to an instant hazard at high speed. Maybe its better to describe that I don't come to a complete stop, but due to the low speed of a cyclist, I have to deploy pressure on the brake and clutch to reduce my speed and avoid a cut out, although I accept I probably never actually stop to a hal, so the term emergency stop might be setting precedent I'm bursting around the city centre skidding to a halt all over the place

TheDoc

Should pay some form of road tax

galwaycyclist wrote: »

How many cycling lessons did you get? And of the "driving" lessons above, how many of them covered cycling or vulnerable road users generally?

I'll assume you actually don't mean cycling lessons....and mean in reference from driving.

My basic lessons covered the basics in terms of distance, speed etc.

Advanced driving covers risk assessment, identifying potential risk within the vicinity of your car and the path you are taking, aswell as possible scenarios of risk (i.e. car doors opening, children running from behind cars, cyclists merging into traffic without stopping, cars jumping lights) as well as defensive driving.

dub_skav

I'm curious as to what kind of stop does not involve using the clutch and brake, what you describe as an emergency stop sounds like a stop to me

dub_skav

dub_skav wrote: »

I'm curious as to what kind of stop does not involve using the clutch and brake, what you describe as an emergency stop sounds like a stop to me

Edit, also your advanced driving course sounds like normal driving to me.
I will admit that it is a long time since i did my test, but if that is now considered advanced driving then I'm a bit worried

Edit, that wasn't an edit, it was a quote. That's what i get for posting while driving

ThisRegard

seamus wrote: »

If you're performing more than one emergency stop per year, then your driving style is dangerous and I would suggest that you would find an advanced driving course very beneficial.

I somehow manage to conduct 99.999% of my driving journeys without emergency stops or sudden swerves.

When I cycle, the only delays are caused by drivers and busses in my way.

Yeah, I wonder how in over 17 years commuting in and out of the city centre, on bike and car, I've never been forced into an emergency stop because of a cyclist. A few times because of other motorists mind you, most likely ones similar to this particular poster who is wet behind the ears in terms of driving experience but thinks he knows everything.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, I wonder how in over 17 years commuting in and out of the city centre, on bike and car, I've never been forced into an emergency stop because of a cyclist. A few times because of other motorists mind you, most likely ones similar to this particular poster who is wet behind the ears in terms of driving experience but thinks he knows everything.

To be fair to him, he's clarified that what he calls an "emergency stop" is just having to brake sharply. An emergency stop as generally understood is brining the car to a complete halt as quickly as possible, i.e. right on the verge of skidding. In modern cars an emergency stop will usually invoke the ABS.

The point still stands though - if someone continually finds themselves being surprised by other road users to the point that they need to brake sharply, they need to examine the way that they're driving.

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

Is there any statistical data that brings anything to light in terms of cyclists on our roads, or as someone mentioned did this thread come out of one individual having one bad .... I'd be shocked to find out it wasn't a significant enough figure to warrant a proper debate.

There are pleny of sad statistics showing the thousands of people killed or injured by motorists, a huge problem in comparison to the very few deaths and injuries caused by cyclists.

Couple that with the widespread distegard motorists have for the RoTR, and their irrational insistance that they actually obey them when they don't, it is clear that enforcement measures against motorists are hugely justified.

No debate needed, the road incident statistics say it all.

opti0nal

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

Is there any statistical data that brings anything to light in terms of cyclists on our roads, or as someone mentioned did this thread come out of one individual having one bad .... I'd be shocked to find out it wasn't a significant enough figure to warrant a proper debate.

There are pleny of sad statistics showing the thousands of people killed or injured by motorists, a huge problem in comparison to the very few deaths and injuries caused by cyclists.

Couple that with the widespread distegard motorists have for the RoTR, and their irrational insistance that they actually obey them when they don't, it is clear that enforcement measures against motorists are hugely justified.

No debate needed, the road incident statistics say it all.

donegal_road

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 remember FG were talking about bringing this in under Garret Fitzgerald

woodoo

Should pay insurance

Pests the lot of them especially on main roads.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

woodoo wrote: »

Pests the lot of them especially on main roads.

Yeah, bloody motorists are everywhere

galwaycyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

I'll assume you actually don't mean cycling lessons....and mean in reference from driving.

My basic lessons covered the basics in terms of distance, speed etc.

Advanced driving covers risk assessment, identifying potential risk within the vicinity of your car and the path you are taking, aswell as possible scenarios of risk (i.e. car doors opening, children running from behind cars, cyclists merging into traffic without stopping, cars jumping lights) as well as defensive driving.

No I meant cycling lessons much like the driving course you describe only done on a bicycle.

Edit: So to to continue the point you have recieved no formal instruction or training on where cyclists are supposed to be on the road or why?

It would appear also that your driving instructor lacked a fairly fundamental knowledge of road use or chose not to impart it to you.

If you pm me some kind of postal address I can send you a basic cycling skills leaflet. I can send your driving instructor one as well.

galwaycyclist

seamus wrote: »

To be fair to him, he's clarified that what he calls an "emergency stop" is just having to brake sharply. An emergency stop as generally understood is brining the car to a complete halt as quickly as possible, i.e. right on the verge of skidding. In modern cars an emergency stop will usually invoke the ABS.

The point still stands though - if someone continually finds themselves being surprised by other road users to the point that they need to brake sharply, they need to examine the way that they're driving.

I dont think the emergency stop is taught or tested here in the same way it would bein other countries taking you to a place where you practice it and practice controlling the car in a skid etc.

Most Irish drivers think they have been taught how to drive but by the standards of other countries -they havent.

Jawgap

TheDoc wrote: »

I also appreciate the comments from the guys above indicating the issue might be with my driving. I'm not going to blow smoke out my arse, I'm driving a year. But I did attend 15 driving lessons and completed and advanced driving course as you mentioned.

.

It's a mistake to believe every driver in Ireland passed a test to get their licence.

In 1979 the government gave out an amnesty and 45,000 driver's licences were issued to people who had only ever held provisional licences.

That's even before we get to talking about acquired rights for professional drivers.

Mint Sauce

Cyclists are subject to the ROR and some guards do give out fines to them, although I have seen some guard cyclists breaking the ROR, ie mounting the pavement, going down the wrong way of a one way street, turning on a none left/right turn, and not always in the line of duty.

Also, as Motor Tax is based on engine size and emissions, until my bike gains an engine, why should it be subject to tax. Plus I already pay enough of it on my car.

gbee

Should pay insurance

irish-stew wrote: »

Plus I already pay enough of it on my car.

TBH, there is so much wrong with your post that you should lose your license to drive. I'd be glad to enforce that for starters.

Next, responsibility, at the moment cyclist have none, OK they die and TBH again, some have deserved it, they were stupid, aggressive and are now dead.

Cyclists need to be taught, just as car drivers are taught and pass a test and get insurance and pay tax for those 'private' lanes that are cropping up.

And tbh, you don't pay a fraction on your car.

Mint Sauce

gbee wrote: »

TBH, there is so much wrong with your post that you should lose your license to drive. I'd be glad to enforce that for starters.

Next, responsibility, at the moment cyclist have none, OK they die and TBH again, some have deserved it, they were stupid, aggressive and are now dead.

Cyclists need to be taught, just as car drivers are taught and pass a test and get insurance and pay tax for those 'private' lanes that are cropping up.

And tbh, you don't pay a fraction on your car.

What the hell has my thoughts on the topic got to do with my ability to drive?

The cost of your motor is based on the size of your car engine or the emissions it produces is it not, last time I checked, my bike does not have one, nor does it produce any emissions.

I have seen guards on bikes break the ROR, have also seen other cyclists do as well.

As for them 'private lanes', ask any regular cyclists about them, most will avoid them for a number of reasons, cars parking in them, pulling into them with out warning, collection of all types of debris, placed in the most unsuitable places, and pedestrians also walking in them without looking for cyclists are just some of the reasons.

Also as for the tax, it doesn't just go on the roads, it goes in the same one big pot as every other tax we pay in this country.

Plenty of cyclists have been maned or killed as well though no fault of their own, agreed some them do need to be taught, but there are also plenty of drivers that need to be retaught as well.

fasttalkerchat

dub_skav wrote: »

I don't mean to have a go here - you seem quite reasonable.

But, have you actually ever seen a situation where there is a cycle lane to the left and cars are held up for 10 minutes by a single cyclist?

I ask because people seem to get very stressed out by delays in traffic, as a result they exaggerate the difficulties that they meet. So, after being delayed in heavy traffic for a long time, a driver meets a cyclist and is delayed for 30 seconds, in their head this becomes "That stupid cyclist delayed me for 5 minutes and had no helmet, wasn't using cycle lane, no hi vis etc".

This is a very them and us attitude which has no real benefit.

In truth, cycle lanes can be very dangerous. Since the mandatory use was removed I now skip a cycle lane on my way home that caused me to leave the road and cross a side road with poor visibility for everyone, then rejoin the main road in a car's blind spot.
This is very badly planned and dangerous and I am glad that I am not obliged to use it anymore.
So in summary, I use the cycle lanes that are useful and skip the ones that are dangerous - as I am now legally entitled to do

The reason why I used the 10 minute figure is because that is where there should be action taken in terms of fines or points.
When a tractor pulls in after 2 mins of a car being unable to pass its courtesy, after 10 mins of not pulling in its holding up the flow of traffic by driving too slow.
If a car drives too slow its an offence immediately, why do the rules change for cyclists who refuse to accommodate other road users.

gbee

Should pay insurance

irish-stew wrote: »

What the hell has my thoughts on the topic got to do with my ability to drive? .

Everything, to be honest.

gbee

Should pay insurance

It's unacceptable that our road planners see motorists, cyclist and public service vehicles mixing.

We need to unit and dig up the roads and destroy PPP without paying as much as if we built the fu**g thing out of Tax.

We cannot share the road. Or we can share the road. We cannot partition it.

RainyDay

gbee wrote: »

TBH, there is so much wrong with your post that you should lose your license to drive. I'd be glad to enforce that for starters.

Next, responsibility, at the moment cyclist have none, OK they die and TBH again, some have deserved it, they were stupid, aggressive and are now dead.

Cyclists need to be taught, just as car drivers are taught and pass a test and get insurance and pay tax for those 'private' lanes that are cropping up.

And tbh, you don't pay a fraction on your car.

Eh, no - so much wrong there it's hard to know where to start. Many cyclists are trained. Many schools train cyclists these days. Many cyclists are also trained and tested drivers. Most cyclists take responsibility for their cycling, just like most other road users. And cyclists pay lots of tax.

TheDoc wrote: »

I've given a specific example of where it happens, and the knock on effect it has on the congestion behind. While I accept the cycle track might not be in the best condition ( going by general statement on tracks here). The lane towards Finglas is one lane, with two in the opposite direction. To perform a safe overtake cuts very fine with oncoming traffic, and I understand why most people are not comfortable doing it, and I know I'm not comfortable being a few inches away from a cyclist on an overtake.

If traffic is so heavy that you're unable to get a safe gap to overtake the cyclists, the odds are that overtaking the cyclist won't actually get you anywhere. It will get you to the back of the next queue of traffic up ahead. What's the point, really?

TheDoc wrote: »

The alternative, to were a cyclist comes out from behind a car waiting to merge onto oncoming traffic, is for me to mill the cyclist.

I'd have hoped that I wouldn't have to explain this to any qualified car driver, but it seems that you're not aware of the other alternative. Anticipate. Read the road ahead, and all the road users - cars, pedestrians, cyclists. Don't get yourself into a situation that requires emergency stops.

TheDoc wrote: »

An emergency stop can be performed at really any speed of travel, but perhaps its most frequently associated with reacting to an instant hazard at high speed. Maybe its better to describe that I don't come to a complete stop, but due to the low speed of a cyclist, I have to deploy pressure on the brake and clutch to reduce my speed and avoid a cut out, although I accept I probably never actually stop to a hal, so the term emergency stop might be setting precedent I'm bursting around the city centre skidding to a halt all over the place

An emergency stop means stopping in an emergency. If you're having two emergencies a day, you need to change your driving style.

Mr.Crinklewood

It should be law to gave cycle helmets a bright / florescent colour.

Sick of cyclists wearing dark clothing getting in my way, by suddenly appearing out of the dark.