What to do when Driving on the wrong side of the road? [NSFW AUDIO]

SerialComplaint

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I'm guessing they don't have time to stop for red lights either ?

Some do, some don't. Just like some drivers obey speed limits, most don't. Some drivers don't use their phone while driving, most do. Cyclists don't have a monopoly on ignoring traffic laws.

AugustusMinimus

The majority do in my experience.

Tallon

Voodoomelon wrote: »

This guy could have made about €1000 in 2 days if he had adverts set up on the video.

You mean €16,000

dr.fuzzenstein

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Some do, some don't. Just like some drivers obey speed limits, most don't. Some drivers don't use their phone while driving, most do. Cyclists don't have a monopoly on ignoring traffic laws.

Well the fact it is alright for cyclists to break the law because motorists break the law must now make it alright for motorists to break the law, because that is what makes it alright for cyclists in the first place.
So we're all agreed and happy that everyone can carry on as they do.
Maybe the Gardai should get out there and enforce the rules for a change and I do mean on everyone, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Doesn't matter who started it. Seriously, it's like listening to a bunch of six year olds arguing when it comes to motorists vs cyclists vs pedestrians...

Tallon

CiniO wrote: »

To make any money on youtube, you pretty much need to count your views in millions not thousands.

Not true!

Kenny Logins

Tallon wrote: »

You mean €16,000

Depends on the clicks. I'd imagine the CTR would be very low as I'm not sure what targeted advertising this video would carry..

Tallon

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Depends on the clicks. I'd imagine the CTR would be very low as I'm not sure what targeted advertising this video would carry..

That's based on views alone, assuming you're a YouTube partner!

Kenny Logins

Tallon wrote: »

That's based on views alone, assuming you're a YouTube partner!

Unlikely. ..or we'd all be out on our bicycles looking for trouble.

...and it would only be around €1500, no? (assuming €2 per 1k views)

CiniO

Tallon wrote: »

Not true!

Any link to some howto of making money on youtube then?

Kenny Logins

CiniO wrote: »

Any link to some howto of making money on youtube then?

Make a video (no copyright protected content), switch on adverts (monetise it) and get ¾ million people to watch it over the weekend. Easy.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tallon

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Unlikely. ..or we'd all be out on our bicycles looking for trouble.

...and it would only be around €1500, no? (assuming €2 per 1k views)

It's a fact... trust me!

The point is, if you're a YT partner before uploading it, then you will get that much, but he won't, since the video was a 'once off'!

YT Full Partner is ~€21 pk

Voodoomelon

I don't know where you're getting your figures Tallon, but even partners make no where near that.

Videos average €0.70-€2.50 per 1000 views. Most videos average around the €1 mark, YT celebs and prolific uploaders make the higher figures.

I've been a partner for a few years now and only now am I getting my head around why I earn what I do.

Tallon

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting your figures Tallon, but even partners make no where near that.

Videos average €0.70-€2.50 per 1000 views. Most videos average around the €1 mark, YT celebs and prolific uploaders make the higher figures.

I've been a partner for a few years now and only now am I getting my head around why I earn what I do.

I'm getting my figures from google' that's what you get if you're a full partner

I get more than that what you said, and I'm with a third party company

Voodoomelon

I guess i'm still learning, what do you mean by you're with a third party company?

Any Google results in relation to Partner earnings is what I posted above. To say you can make the guts of €20,000 per million views seems beyond far fetched to me.

Tallon

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I guess i'm still learning, what do you mean by you're with a third party company?

Any Google results in relation to Partner earnings is what I posted above. To say you can make the guts of €20,000 per million views seems beyond far fetched to me.

It means that I only get a percentage of earnings from the video, and the rest goes to my third party company to pay for copyright, etc

Edit: also, when I say I'm getting my figures from google, I don't mean from a search, I mean From google!

What's you're Chanel name?

Zulu

*your


oh no he didn't! (finger snap)

Tallon

Zulu wrote: »

*your


oh no he didn't! (finger snap)

Fat fingers + autocorrect

Voodoomelon

Ah, so you have copyrighted content in yours. I still think you're way off on your figures, as far as i'm aware all the big celebs get several grand a week for their efforts and their videos are getting a million hits a day. They certainly aren't earning €100,000 a week.

I don't want to drag this post off topic anymore, but I have a few YouTube channels linked to one Adsense account, id rather not post; theyve about 1,100,000 combined views. I only wish they earned what you say they do.

Tallon

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Ah, so you have copyrighted content in yours. I still think you're way off on your figures, as far as i'm aware all the big celebs get several grand a week for their efforts and their videos are getting a million hits a day. They certainly aren't earning €100,000 a week.

I don't want to drag this post off topic anymore, but I have a few YouTube channels linked to one Adsense account, id rather not post; theyve about 1,100,000 combined views. I only wish they earned what you say they do.

Adsense is different than full partnership!

The videos are earning that much a week, however, the big YTers are on a contract so they don get the full whack

Kenny Logins

Tallon wrote: »

It means that I only get a percentage of earnings from the video, and the rest goes to my third party company to pay for copyright, etc

Edit: also, when I say I'm getting my figures from google, I don't mean from a search, I mean From google!

What's you're Chanel name?

Interesting. What channel, if you don't mind me asking?

mitosis

corktina wrote: »

it was her who opened the door to berate him, she didn't need to do that

Of course cyclists can take up the whole lane, they are vehicles too

Aren't road users in this country required to keep left? That doesn't just mean on the left side of the middle of the road, it means on the left of the road. Cycling on the right of the left side of the road is not acceptable behaviour.

SerialComplaint

mitosis wrote: »

Aren't road users in this country required to keep left? That doesn't just mean on the left side of the middle of the road, it means on the left of the road. Cycling on the right of the left side of the road is not acceptable behaviour.

Wrong. Here's what the Road Safety Authority say;

Always cycle with the traffic, and ride well clear of the kerb. You have as much right to your road space as any other road user

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXhsiJD_Gjo

ba_barabus

That video claims they should cycle well out from the kerb in order to reduce dangerous overtaking by motorists?

MADNESS

Anan1

ba_barabus wrote: »

That video claims they should cycle well out from the kerb in order to reduce dangerous overtaking by motorists?

MADNESS

Really? Makes perfect sense to me.

Tallon

ba_barabus wrote: »

That video claims they should cycle well out from the kerb in order to reduce dangerous overtaking by motorists?

MADNESS

Exhibit A, in the OP!

Tallon

All Videos are now private!

ba_barabus

Anan1 wrote: »

Really? Makes perfect sense to me.

Not to me. I understand the need to cycle clear of the kerb even from a comfort point of view but far enough out will have the same affect as a slow driver holding up traffic. It'll only be a matter of time before someone gets frustrated and makes a questionable overtaking manoeuvre.

BTW I cycle to work most days in case someone thinks I'm anti bike.

Kenny Logins

ba_barabus wrote: »

Not to me. I understand the need to cycle clear of the kerb even from a comfort point of view but far enough out will have the same affect as a slow driver holding up traffic. It'll only be a matter of time before someone gets frustrated and makes a questionable overtaking manoeuvre.

BTW I cycle to work most days in case someone thinks I'm anti bike.

It's to prevent drivers trying to squeeze past before waiting until the road is clear to do so. Makes sense to me.

ba_barabus

Kenny Logins wrote: »

It's to prevent drivers trying to squeeze past before waiting until the road is clear to do so. Makes sense to me.

Suppose if you look at it like that.

I was imagining cars getting caught behind the bike and getting frustrated.

Personally I viewed it as playing traffic roulette. Would you tell a pedestrian to walk well out in the road to avoid a car passing them in a dangerous manner?

SerialComplaint

ba_barabus wrote: »

Not to me. I understand the need to cycle clear of the kerb even from a comfort point of view but far enough out will have the same affect as a slow driver holding up traffic. It'll only be a matter of time before someone gets frustrated and makes a questionable overtaking manoeuvre.

BTW I cycle to work most days in case someone thinks I'm anti bike.

ba_barabus wrote: »

I was imagining cars getting caught behind the bike and getting frustrated.

Frustrated at what? Once they get past the cyclist, they'll find themselves sitting in a queue of cars. The cyclist isn't holding them up or delaying their journey.

ba_barabus wrote: »

Personally I viewed it as playing traffic roulette. Would you tell a pedestrian to walk well out in the road to avoid a car passing them in a dangerous manner?

Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road. Cyclists should be on the road.

piston

ba_barabus wrote: »

Not to me. I understand the need to cycle clear of the kerb even from a comfort point of view but far enough out will have the same affect as a slow driver holding up traffic. It'll only be a matter of time before someone gets frustrated and makes a questionable overtaking manoeuvre.

BTW I cycle to work most days in case someone thinks I'm anti bike.

No, no and thrice no.

Keeping out from the verge/kerb forces cars to slow down and overtake properly instead of skimming past with an inch to spare as they do if you keep to the extreme left. This is much safer for the cyclist.

You are also positioning yourself in a place where other road users expect to find traffic so you are more visible to someone pulling out of a side road for example. You would also become invisible to traffic from behind on left hand bends on country roads if you keep to the extreme left.

There is also the issues of cycling past parked cars and the possibility of being doored, further reason not to hug the left.

Potholes, incorrectly installed drainage grids and other potentially lethal obstacles are usually found on the extreme left of the carriageway. This is further reason to keep out.

And if all else fails, you have room to take avoiding action where required.

This advice is nothing new and I have a cyclists handbook from the 1920s giving the clear, straightforward advice to maintain a 2 - 3 foot gap to the kerb at all times outlining the reasons such as I have written above.

The problem is not caused by cyclists but by the ignorance and stupidity of the average Irish driver.

ba_barabus

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Frustrated at what? Once they get past the cyclist, they'll find themselves sitting in a queue of cars. The cyclist isn't holding them up or delaying their journey.



Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road. Cyclists should be on the road.

As a reply to both points I'll just say not everyone lives in Dublin and has traffic problems or footpaths

ba_barabus

piston wrote: »

straightforward advice to maintain a 2 - 3 foot gap to the kerb

That makes sense. In the video however the cyclist is almost in the middle of the road which to me would be dangerous.

cjt156

ba_barabus wrote: »

As a reply to both points I'll just say not everyone lives in Dublin and has traffic problems or footpaths

By that logic outside urban areas lighter traffic should give more safe-overtaking opportunities. So there's no reason to squeeze past a cyclist inches from the ditch.

alias no.9

ba_barabus wrote: »

That video claims they should cycle well out from the kerb in order to reduce dangerous overtaking by motorists?

MADNESS

If you stay so far left that a motorist thinks they might just squeeze through despite the oncoming traffic, a significant portion of motorists will try it, and you're toast if they misjudge the gap.

Where ever there's even the slightest doubt that there's enough room for a motorist and cyclist to safely pass through the same space together, its safest for the cyclist that they take a course that bisects the space rather than staying at one side or the other, this makes it clear to the motorist that they must pass through one after the other rather than side by side as well as giving the cyclist space to move into if the motorist is too thick to read what's happening in front of them. When the space gets wider and there's room for the cyclist and motorist in the same space, then keep left and let any traffic by.

ba_barabus

cjt156 wrote: »

By that logic outside urban areas lighter traffic should give more safe-overtaking opportunities. So there's no reason to squeeze past a cyclist inches from the ditch.

Single lane roads which go on for miles would be an issue

piston

ba_barabus wrote: »

That makes sense. In the video however the cyclist is almost in the middle of the road which to me would be dangerous.

He was discouraging a dozy 4 x 4 driver who thinks she owns the road because she pays road tax from squeezing into a tight gap between the cyclist and the park cars and squeezing the cyclist into the kerb. He was doing it for his own safety and I would do the same thing.

ba_barabus

piston wrote: »

He was discouraging a dozy 4 x 4 driver who thinks she owns the road because she pays road tax from squeezing into a tight gap between the cyclist and the park cars and squeezing the cyclist into the kerb. He was doing it for his own safety and I would do the same thing.

But nobody is talking about the original video........,you may want to watch the video before jumping in for an argument

piston

ba_barabus wrote: »

But nobody is talking about the original video........,you may want to watch the video before jumping in for an argument

Sorry I missed a few pages

ba_barabus

piston wrote: »

Sorry I missed a few pages

Happens the best of us

SerialComplaint

Even the very-risk-averse lawyers are recommending cycling away from the kerb:



From http://road.cc/content/news/84533-video-and-infographic-law-firm-highlight-cycle-safety-issues

dr.fuzzenstein

piston wrote: »

No, no and thrice no.

Keeping out from the verge/kerb forces cars to slow down and overtake properly instead of skimming past with an inch to spare as they do if you keep to the extreme left. This is much safer for the cyclist.

You are also positioning yourself in a place where other road users expect to find traffic so you are more visible to someone pulling out of a side road for example. You would also become invisible to traffic from behind on left hand bends on country roads if you keep to the extreme left.

There is also the issues of cycling past parked cars and the possibility of being doored, further reason not to hug the left.

Potholes, incorrectly installed drainage grids and other potentially lethal obstacles are usually found on the extreme left of the carriageway. This is further reason to keep out.

And if all else fails, you have room to take avoiding action where required.

This advice is nothing new and I have a cyclists handbook from the 1920s giving the clear, straightforward advice to maintain a 2 - 3 foot gap to the kerb at all times outlining the reasons such as I have written above.

The problem is not caused by cyclists but by the ignorance and stupidity of the average Irish driver.

Yes, absolutely right, I have never seen cyclists do daft things like break lights, cycle against traffic, on footpaths, pull out into the road without looking, cycle three abreast, hit mirrors on cars, etc...
I largely agree with your post, or would have, had you not negated a good argument with an ignorant statement.
Maybe it's it's the ignorance and stupidity of cyclists that is causing the problem is my counter argument. Makes you think, doesn't it? well, it doesn't because it's nothing but an ignorant and stupid statement that doesn't help the debate, in fact throws us back to page one, except we're more entrenched in our views, the debate will go round again, and every side will dig in a little deeper.

Spook_ie

Is it not about time that cycling organisations, the RSA etc. brought into cycle education.

Catch them young BEFORE they start driving makes them aware of the pros and cons of cycling in traffic and educates them HOW to actually cycle in traffic and might just make them more aware as drivers of cyclists/

I'd be pretty sure that if they wanted to that Cyclists Ireland/RSA etc. would be able to get access to the course materials etc. from the bikeability scheme that the UK runs and set up a similar scheme here.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/delivering-bikeability/bikeability-course-guides/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/wp-content/uploads/Bikeability_Delivery_Guide.pdf


Just seems that it's easier to keep blaming everyone else instead of grasping the nettles

piston

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, absolutely right, I have never seen cyclists do daft things like break lights, cycle against traffic, on footpaths, pull out into the road without looking, cycle three abreast, hit mirrors on cars, etc...
I largely agree with your post, or would have, had you not negated a good argument with an ignorant statement.
Maybe it's it's the ignorance and stupidity of cyclists that is causing the problem is my counter argument. Makes you think, doesn't it? well, it doesn't because it's nothing but an ignorant and stupid statement that doesn't help the debate, in fact throws us back to page one, except we're more entrenched in our views, the debate will go round again, and every side will dig in a little deeper.

I have also seen drivers do all those things you mentioned and more. Everyday I see drivers jumping red lights, on the phone, sending text messages, tailgating other vehicles, driving out of junctions without looking or overtaking when it isn't safe. It's true that not all drivers do these sort of things, but a worringly large percentage do.

The only difference is that a typical modern car weighs at least a ton, is capable of high speed and has the capacity to do serious damage to life, limb and property. The idiot cyclist (a small minority of cyclists) is only really putting himself at risk.

Irish drivers need to realise that driving is a privilege and not a right and to take responsibility for their often dangerous behaviour. The culture of inconsiderate driving is so engrained in Irish society that most people don't even realise there is a problem and the politicians and Gardai don't bother do anything useful.

Perhaps some day we will catch up with the more civilised countries on the continent and have some form of presumed liability.

AugustusMinimus

Why is the only defence of cyclists going through red lights on here is to say that drivers break the law too.

That's no defence at all.

piston

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why is the only defence of cyclists going through red lights on here is to say that drivers break the law too.

That's no defence at all.

I'm not defending cyclists going through red lights. I'm pointing out to the "all cyclists break red lights" brigade that most cyclists don't and I personally witness more drivers break red lights than I do cyclists.

The rules of the road should be enforced for all but it is dangerous drivers who kill people.

One thing to bear in mind is that traffic lights on a sensor won't change for a bike so there is no real option but to break it with caution or wait for a car to appear.

Tigger

ba_barabus wrote: »

That makes sense. In the video however the cyclist is almost in the middle of the road which to me would be dangerous.

Middle of the lane not middle of the road

AugustusMinimus

I'd estimate a good 80% of cyclists persistently go through red lights. Purely from observation though.

Tigger

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I'd estimate a good 80% of cyclists persistently go through red lights. Purely from observation though.

I'd say that there is a degree of bias in your observation ie ; you only really n price the ones that break red lights over and over as they keep up with the pace of traffic while the ones that stop at reds are left behind so you only see them once