Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

1235722

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Keep_Her_Lit


    But they are also using roads paid for by tax payers (which most cyclists probably aren't, let's face it). They should contribute.
    Please substantiate this claim, if you can. Then we'll see if we can "face it".

    In any case, even if some cyclists aren't tax payers, so what? Most publicly funded services aren't used by those funding them in direct proportion to their contributions. Life just ain't fair, eh?

    For example, as a tax paying cyclist who very rarely avails of public (or private) health services, I have no objection to a proportion of my income being used to cover the enormous health costs arising from the sedentary and stress-prone lifestyles which are the result of over reliance on cars.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    I notice the way alot of people just cant get their head around the fact the cyclist was in the wrong. Witnesses at the scene agreed with the OP and said they seen it unfold. Sure the OP could be lying, but why would he bother, just to get sympathy in AH....!

    I think we all agree that motorists in Ireland are not the best and have bad habits.

    I think we can all agree that pedestrians like to play chicken with traffic. I was heading home through fairview the other night and a group of lads thought playing with traffic was a great laugh, they actually where PLAYING with traffic at 1am. I dont like playing chicken with pedestrians while im on my motornike, it makes me cranky.

    And i think we can all agree that cyclists should stop at a red light.

    If some guy who was in the wrong came up to my wife and called her a cnut, id be none to pleased and probably either be arrested or get a good kicking.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 408 ✭✭PC CDROM


    Please substantiate this claim, if you can. Then we'll see if we can "face it".

    In any case, even if some cyclists aren't tax payers, so what? Most publicly funded services aren't used by those funding them in direct proportion to their contributions. Life just ain't fair, eh?

    For example, as a tax paying cyclist who very rarely avails of public (or private) health services, I have no objection to a proportion of my income being used to cover the enormous health costs arising from the sedentary and stress-prone lifestyles which are the result of over reliance on cars.

    I'd enjoy driving over you when you break a red.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    As I said, for all those clyclists who go through red lights, you can have an accident for all I care, it's completely your own fault and you are breaking the law, no matter how many excuses you make for it.

    You'll see me laughing at the red light with no injuries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    BostonB wrote: »
    Er hes not justifying it? Look at the context of the comment. Hes explaining why some do it, and why it doesn't cause as many accidents that you might assume it would. Which was the question asked.

    Eh it's still breaking the law and dangerous, no matter how many excuses people have for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Mugser wrote: »
    Hmmmmmm, a tonne- tonne and a half of metal with ABS, Airbags and numerous other safety systems to protect the driver/passengers... V's 10-15kgs of bike with a fully exposed pilot where the only safety system was probably his helmet???
    Only one winner there as far as I can see. Get over yourself and open your eyes.
    A few weeks ago a car drove in on top of me into a cycle lane, close enough for me to land a right thump on the car door... the driver had the cheek to accuse me of criminal damage:eek::eek: D***head!!
    You landed a right thump on the car door eh! Well done sir - your parents must be very proud!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭irlirishkev


    Knasher wrote: »

    It was made a crime over here under the Road Traffic Regulations, S.I. No. 182/1997.

    When?
    And what's the actual law on it? Got a link?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Summary of this and all similar threads:

    SOME drivers are dicks
    SOME motorcyclists are dicks
    SOME cyclists are dicks
    SOME pedestrians are dicks
    Sounds like you have been involved in lots of these threads - why bother contributing if you have already achieved the nirvana state of knowing the above?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    When?
    And what's the actual law on it? Got a link?
    Sometime in 1997
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html
    Scroll down to section 46, paraphrasing, it is illegal to cross a road within 15 meters of a traffic crossing except via the traffic crossing when the light facing you is green.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 638 ✭✭✭imurdaddy


    I notice the way alot of people just cant get their head around the fact the cyclist was in the wrong. Witnesses at the scene agreed with the OP and said they seen it unfold. Sure the OP could be lying, but why would he bother, just to get sympathy in AH....!

    I think we all agree that motorists in Ireland are not the best and have bad habits.

    I think we can all agree that pedestrians like to play chicken with traffic. I was heading home through fairview the other night and a group of lads thought playing with traffic was a great laugh, they actually where PLAYING with traffic at 1am. I dont like playing chicken with pedestrians while im on my motornike, it makes me cranky.

    And i think we can all agree that cyclists should stop at a red light.

    If some guy who was in the wrong came up to my wife and called her a cnut, id be none to pleased and probably either be arrested or get a good kicking.

    Because he turned across a cycle lane without due care and nearly killed a member of the public! 100% wrong, the the bike has right away. how do you not grasp that? would you turn across the left hand lane without checking around you? read the rules of the road.


  • Site Banned Posts: 638 ✭✭✭imurdaddy


    You landed a right thump on the car door eh! Well done sir - your parents must be very proud!

    as yours would be when you destroy someones life with moronic driving! but hey your so cutting edge with your driving skills lets not worry!:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭irlirishkev


    Knasher wrote: »
    Sometime in 1997
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html
    Scroll down to section 46, paraphrasing, it is illegal to cross a road within 15 meters of a traffic crossing except via the traffic crossing when the light facing you is green.

    Ah okay it's in the statute. Don't think it's an arrestable offence though. Anyway. Point taken like I said. Drifting off topic a tad


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Keep_Her_Lit


    PC CDROM wrote: »
    I'd enjoy driving over you when you break a red.
    Enjoy your pathetic little fantasy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    imurdaddy wrote: »
    as yours would be when you destroy someones life with moronic driving! but hey your so cutting edge with your driving skills lets not worry!:rolleyes:
    You don't do logical fallacies by half, do you? Well done, deducting my driving skills based only my posts on this thread. I wonder what people would deduce about you based only on your posts on this thread?


  • Site Banned Posts: 638 ✭✭✭imurdaddy


    PC CDROM wrote: »
    I'd enjoy driving over you when you break a red.

    Will you enjoy the beating i give you for tryin to kill me?


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 638 ✭✭✭imurdaddy


    You don't do logical fallacies by half, do you? Well done, deducting my driving skills based only my posts on this thread. I wonder what people would deduce about you based only on your posts on this thread?

    deduce what you want i'm not the one blowin about running over cyclists and walkers! can you not see the prolblem? try understand the words you use also makes you look a little dim!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    I notice the way alot of people just cant get their head around the fact the cyclist was in the wrong. Witnesses at the scene agreed with the OP and said they seen it unfold. Sure the OP could be lying, but why would he bother, just to get sympathy in AH....!

    I think we all agree that motorists in Ireland are not the best and have bad habits.

    I think we can all agree that pedestrians like to play chicken with traffic. I was heading home through fairview the other night and a group of lads thought playing with traffic was a great laugh, they actually where PLAYING with traffic at 1am. I dont like playing chicken with pedestrians while im on my motornike, it makes me cranky.

    And i think we can all agree that cyclists should stop at a red light.

    If some guy who was in the wrong came up to my wife and called her a cnut, id be none to pleased and probably either be arrested or get a good kicking.


    How was the cyclist wrong if you don't mind explaining.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    I think we all agree that motorists in Ireland are not the best and have bad habits.
    Such as killing or maiming people and putting people in fear of their lives. You make these acts sound like lovable indiscretions.
    IAnd i think we can all agree that cyclists should stop at a red light.
    There was no red light.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    Today I was driving through some town near Sligo. A cyclist was in the middle of the road in front of me... and he got off, let traffic flow and then got back on his bike.

    They're not all bad!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    Today I was driving through some town near Sligo. A cyclist was in the middle of the road in front of me... and he got off, let traffic flow and then got back on his bike. They're not all bad!
    Yesterday a motorist got five years jail for killing an innocent couple while he drove on the wrong side of the road with nearly double the legal alcohol limit in his blood. The lady died at the scene from massive injuries, her husband died shortly afterwards in hospital. Their children are devastated.

    The driver is appealing the conviction because of the way the guards got access to his blood data from the hospital.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    opti0nal wrote: »
    Yesterday a motorist got five years jail for killing an innocent couple while he drove on the wrong side of the road with nearly double the legal alcohol limit in his blood. The lady died at the scene from massive injuries, her husband died shortly afterwards in hospital. Their children are devastated.

    The driver is appealing the conviction because of the way the guards got access to his blood data from the hospital.

    I don't think anyone's denying there are bad drivers. I was just pointing out good cyclist behaviour, where a cyclist went out of his way to make sure he didn't hold up traffic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    I don't think anyone's denying there are bad drivers. I was just pointing out good cyclist behaviour, where a cyclist went out of his way to make sure he didn't hold up traffic.
    You mean like drivers who don't park or stop in cycle lanes even when permitted? Or the 22% of drivers who obey speed limits?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    opti0nal wrote: »
    You mean like drivers who don't park or stop in cycle lanes even when permitted? Or the 22% of drivers who obey speed limits?

    If you're going to complain about me doing 65 in a 60 just make sure you're not trundling along at 15!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    If you're going to complain about me doing 65 in a 60 just make sure you're not trundling along at 15!

    No law against going 15 on any roads besides motor ways and dual carriage ways, there is a law against going 65 on a 60...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Cienciano wrote: »
    Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
    FYP

    ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    imurdaddy wrote: »
    Because he turned across a cycle lane without due care and nearly killed a member of the public! 100% wrong, the the bike has right away. how do you not grasp that? would you turn across the left hand lane without checking around you? read the rules of the road.

    He didn't nearly kill anyone, the cyclist should have been paying due care and attention, or does that not apply to cyclists. The light was red, where did he think he was going huh, now how about you read the rules of the road - hint, you stop at a red light.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    opti0nal wrote: »
    Such as killing or maiming people and putting people in fear of their lives. You make these acts sound like lovable indiscretions.

    There was no red light.

    So saying motorist are not the best and have bad habits is akin to saying thier just loveable rogues - get a grip. What should I say, every motorist out there thinks he is mad max.

    Try reading the first post before you say there was no red light, it might help.

    So all motorists maim, kill and put the fear in everyone's lives. Is it death race your talking about, wrong forum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    He didn't nearly kill anyone, the cyclist should have been paying due care and attention, or does that not apply to cyclists. The light was red, where did he think he was going huh, now how about you read the rules of the road - hint, you stop at a red light.

    I think you need to reread the OP. There was no indication the cyclist was going to break any red light, he was minding his own business in the cycle lane when the OP crossed in front of him without checking the cycling lane for oncoming traffic. (unless you're somehow suggesting that a cyclist needs to stop whenever he/she sees a red light in the distance but... that would be ridonkulous)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    I think you need to reread the OP. There was no indication the cyclist was going to break any red light, he was minding his own business in the cycle lane when the OP crossed in front of him without checking the cycling lane for oncoming traffic. (unless you're somehow suggesting that a cyclist needs to stop whenever he/she sees a red light in the distance but... that would be ridonkulous)

    Think you need to read it again, was the drivers view obstructed so he couldn't see the cyclist who "wasn't" looking where he was going. Like I said, do cyclists not have to pay due care and attention as well or is that ridonkulos?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Think you need to read it again, was the drivers view obstructed so he couldn't see the cyclist who "wasn't" looking where he was going. Like I said, do cyclists not have to pay due care and attention as well or is that ridonkulos?

    he was in a ****ing bike lane, he shouldn't have to slam on his breaks because some dickhead in a car doesn't know the rules of the road and pulls into on comming traffic.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Think you need to read it again, was the drivers view obstructed so he couldn't see the cyclist who "wasn't" looking where he was going. Like I said, do cyclists not have to pay due care and attention as well or is that ridonkulos?

    The cycle lane is on the far left, so traffic travelling in the same direction as the cycle lane impedes visibility of the oncoming traffic in the far lane. The cyclist has right of way over traffic turning across his lane, always. It is 100% the driver's fault, in exactly the same ways as if you were driving along and someone cut across your lane to turn at a junction, you have right of way. Also, the simplest fact of all is that since the OP drove across a box and the subsequent cycle lane where his view was obstructed and therefore didn't see the cyclist, he's talking through his hole when he comments on how the cyclist wasn't looking where he was going, as he clearly can't have had any indication of that, since he didn't see the cyclist coming in the first place.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    Think you need to read it again, was the drivers view obstructed so he couldn't see the cyclist who "wasn't" looking where he was going. Like I said, do cyclists not have to pay due care and attention as well or is that ridonkulos?

    Firstly I should probably clarify I don't agree with the cyclist in this case. One of the things I always watch out for is a junction when traffic is stopped as clearly it's a time when turning cars will turn. If a cyclist is hit in this scenario it's the cars fault however being in the right doesn't exactly compensate one for being killed/severely injured.

    Now, having said that the cyclist in this case was in his cycling lane, the car was coming from the opposite direction and crossed what is a lane of traffic without checking for any oncoming bikes and almost caused an accident as a result. Clearly the cyclist was paying attention as he was able to brake in time to stop from being splatted.

    I appreciate from a self preservation perspective the cyclist should have approached the junction with care but if we're arguing about who was 'right' then the cyclist was, stupid without doubt but definitely in the right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    Seaneh wrote: »
    he was in a ****ing bike lane, he shouldn't have to slam on his breaks because some dickhead in a car doesn't know the rules of the road and pulls into on comming traffic.

    Ill take that as a, yeah the cyclist shouldn't ****ing have to look where he is going. And everyone who witnessed the incident is wrong because how can a cyclist in a cycle lane be wrong. Maybe they should just make it illegal for anyone to encroach on a cycle lane unless of course your a cyclist, who we all know can do no wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    Ill take that as a, yeah the cyclist shouldn't ****ing have to look where he is going. And everyone who witnessed the incident is wrong because how can a cyclist in a cycle lane be wrong. Maybe they should just make it illegal for anyone to encroach on a cycle lane unless of course your a cyclist, who we all know can do no wrong.

    In fairness you're just trolling now. Even the OP has conceded his girlfriend was wrong (although no one condones the cyclist for acting the dick after the incident).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    Seaneh wrote: »
    No law against going 15 on any roads besides motor ways and dual carriage ways, there is a law against going 65 on a 60...

    I thought there was. Termed as 'failing to making sufficient progress' or something'??

    I remember my driving instructor mentioning it ten years ago.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    Try reading the first post before you say there was no red light, it might help.
    You're being disengenous, the traffic was backed up from a red light, but OP does not actually say that the cyclist broke a red light or was about to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    I thought there was. Termed as 'failing to making sufficient progress' or something'?? I remember my driving instructor mentioning it ten years ago.
    It's a factor in a drving test but not an actual law as such. Of course, obstruction is against the law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    hardCopy wrote: »
    Or you could just, you know, look out for cyclists.

    Some cyclists do have mirrors but they're pretty pointless since bikes don't have blind spots. Bikes also don't kill people when they change lanes without looking.

    They're not really unpredictable at all, when cars stop in a traffic jam cyclists continue to filter. Just assume there is always the possibility of a cyclist moving through stationary cars and watch out for them.


    Hmmm debatable there, ever noticed the number of helmet cam videos where cyclists seldom seem to actually look anywhere behind them?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,393 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Let's just get the facts right here. The cyclist was approaching lights in a cycle lane. The law permits him to continue to overtake on the inside in a cycle lane in slow moving or stopped traffic. He was entitled to cross the yellow box and proceed to the lights. He never broke any light.

    The OP cut across the yellow box when it was not safe to do so

    Now both the cyclist and OP should have exercised caution. Based on the OP's explanation it would appear the cyclist was going too fast. Does that excuse the motorist for cutting across a yellow box that clearly was not clear? Absolutely not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,513 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    I think it is odd they way people are defending the driver by saying he had an obstructed view. Why did he keep moving so? You aren't meant to blindly go forward if you can't check the way is clear.
    Saying the cyclist was going too fast is strange too. Cars and motor bike would have been faster.
    Drivers don't always see cyclists because they don't look for them. I already posted what happened to me. Driver passed me then pulled straight across me. He didn't see me but he did or he would have just driven straight over me. Simply not paying enough attention forgetting he was crossing a lane of traffic.
    I am getting a cam for my bike soon and going to report to Garda from now on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    shed head wrote: »
    bad motorists far outweigh bad cyclists! check out the m50, morons everywhere!

    Well on the M50 you'd expect bad motorists to outweigh bad cyclists!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Duck Soup wrote: »
    What tends to happen is that cyclists, as you say, get used to going through reds where there is no cross traffic or pedestrian crossing. This behaviour then filters into crossroads and T-junctions where there are pedestrian crossings. Cyclists either bowl through the red if they can't see the pedestrians - who can often be obscured by cars stopped at the lights - or they will weave through the gaps between pedestrians as they cross at the green man light. Now that's unsafe. As a pedestrian, I don't get used to it.

    I think we need to establish what we mean by 'unsafe'.

    I am aware that many cyclists go through red lights when they feel it is safe to do so. I am also aware that some (very few though) do the same when pedestrians are crossing.

    In the latter case there's no question it is ignorant behaviour, but is it actually dangerous? Does anyone have statistics as to pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists? Anyone?

    47 pedestrians were killed on Irish roads and pavements in 2011. How many were killed by cyclists? I am guessing none, but stand to be corrected.

    And yet it is cyclists who are turning our cities into a 'living hell' and in a time of stretched Garda resources it is dangerous cycling that we need to be targeting. Is that really sensible?

    BTW I cycled through the 'living hell' this morning and couldn't help but be amused at the sight of bikes, cars and pedestrians all going about their business peacefully without a problem between them. No sign of an anorak with a clipboard taking notes though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    Re the red lights. It would be better just to have lights as a "yield" for cyclists like they do in Paris. It would simplify things and keep the traffic moving.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    MrCreosote wrote: »
    Re the red lights. It would be better just to have lights as a "yield" for cyclists like they do in Paris. It would simplify things and keep the traffic moving.

    Didn't know they did that. It's a great idea.

    I've now said it a few times but it needs to be said again. Traffic lights in urban areas are almost always to control traffic flow.

    They are NOT for safety, in fact there's good research that says it would be safer to remove them all and force road users to use their wits.

    As cyclists are not really a part of the traffic flow, they should be allowed to treat lights as a yield. The argument that they won't be able to do this is nonsense - yield signs work perfectly well for everyone on the roads in cases where there are no traffic lights present.

    At dangerous junctions you just stick up a 'cyclists obey lights' sign.

    Would be a smart way to encourage cycling, reduce congestion and motorists would actually find they prefer it.

    I stopped at the junction of Parliament street and Dame Street today (turning left onto the latter). There were TEN cyclists stopped at the lights, they ended up forming a barrier across the front of the cars. That means that when the lights go green it takes a good while for them to sort themselves out into single file so that a car can overtake.

    If they had been allowed to filter left when safe to do so everyone's journey would be a lot easier.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Didn't know they did that. It's a great idea.

    I've now said it a few times but it needs to be said again. Traffic lights in urban areas are almost always to control traffic flow.

    They are NOT for safety, in fact there's good research that says it would be safer to remove them all and force road users to use their wits.

    As cyclists are not really a part of the traffic flow, they should be allowed to treat lights as a yield. The argument that they won't be able to do this is nonsense - yield signs work perfectly well for everyone on the roads in cases where there are no traffic lights present.

    At dangerous junctions you just stick up a 'cyclists obey lights' sign.

    Would be a smart way to encourage cycling, reduce congestion and motorists would actually find they prefer it.

    I stopped at the junction of Parliament street and Dame Street today (turning left onto the latter). There were TEN cyclists stopped at the lights, they ended up forming a barrier across the front of the cars. That means that when the lights go green it takes a good while for them to sort themselves out into single file so that a car can overtake.

    If they had been allowed to filter left when safe to do so everyone's journey would be a lot easier.

    I stopped at the junction of Parliament street and Dame Street today (turning left onto the latter). There were TEN cyclists stopped at the lights, they ended up forming a barrier across the front of the cars. That means that when the lights go green it takes a good while for them to sort themselves out into single file so that a car can overtake.

    Get rid of the cyclists boxes then, cyclists should be made to Q in turn rather than bully their way in front of motorists

    As cyclists are not really a part of the traffic flow, they should be allowed to treat lights as a yield. The argument that they won't be able to do this is nonsense - yield signs work perfectly well for everyone on the roads in cases where there are no traffic lights present.

    Funny how cyclists want to be part of the traffic when it suits them but not when it doesn't, you are either part of the traffic or not, which would you prefer?

    At dangerous junctions you just stick up a 'cyclists obey lights' sign.

    Would be a smart way to encourage cycling, reduce congestion and motorists would actually find they prefer it.


    Why not just obey lights full stop


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    The other reason cyclists would treat the "yield on red" properly is because if they get it wrong the major consequences would directly affect them.

    Throw in a punitive congestion charge for private vehicles inside the M50 and you're on a winner.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Get rid of the cyclists boxes then, cyclists should be made to Q in turn rather than bully their way in front of motorists
    I'm curious as to how an 80kg cyclist can "bully" their way in front of a 1,500kg car.
    Maybe you're referring to the perfectly legal and worldwide common practice of filtering to the front?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    Spook_ie wrote: »

    Why not just obey lights full stop

    Because changing the rule for cyclists would make things better for everyone.

    Of course if you'd prefer to be a sheep, slavishly obeying the rules without questioning whether there's better way, then be my guest


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how an 80kg cyclist can "bully" their way in front of a 1,500kg car.
    Maybe you're referring to the perfectly legal and worldwide common practice of filtering to the front?

    Perhaps bully may be the wrong choice of words but you get the gist, remove the cycle boxes, restrict cyclists to having to Q and voila problem solved, except that cyclists would then have to learn NOT to speed relative to other cyclists.

    Far easier just to go all George Owellian on them like Animal Farm except it would be 4 wheels good, 2 wheels bad rather than legs


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Funny how cyclists want to be part of the traffic when it suits them but not when it doesn't, you are either part of the traffic or not, which would you prefer?

    Poor phrasing on my part - they are obviously part of the traffic flow, but in congestion, traffic management terms etc they are effectively an irrelevance.

    Or to put it another way, they don't have any impact on the problem that traffic lights are intended to solve.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement