Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

dukedalton

Two incidents in the space of half a mile this morning:

1. I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

2. Having crossed the bridge I then came into a line of traffic. It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other. Now, of course they're entitled to use the road, but on a narrow county road such as this, cycling in this way clearly increases the risk of an accident.

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

mikemac1

Footpaths are not for cyclists

On a narrow road you need to wait for a safe place to overtake.
They can go single file and then they'll be squeezed into the ditch by someone who felt they could not wait.

endacl

Interesting topic. I don't believe this has been covered before. I predict reasoned and balanced discourse.

galwaycyclist

Under Article 13 of the Traffic and Parking regulations SI 182/1997 it is illegal to drive or cycle on roadside footpaths. Cyclists who do so are liable to be prosecuted. There are no legal exemptions based on age, not for child cyclists, not for elderly cyclists.

camel jockey

The levels of cyclist compliance with the rules of the road in Dublin City centre is very disappointing. Braking red lights, cycling the wrong way on one way streets etc. The level of respect that many cyclists show pedestrians is very disheartening, particularly when many cyclists have a problem with their own treatment by motorists.

camel jockey

endacl wrote: »

Interesting topic. I don't believe this has been covered before. I predict reasoned and balanced discourse.

Try doing a search - you'll probably find a few similar threads.

hardCopy

What are the odds of those elderly gents reading this thread?

galwaycyclist

dukedalton wrote: »

Two incidents in the space of half a mile this morning:

1. I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

2. Having crossed the bridge I then came into a line of traffic. It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other. Now, of course they're entitled to use the road, but on a narrow county road such as this, cycling in this way clearly increases the risk of an accident.

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

The traffic regulations also contain a requirement that vehicles be driven at a speed that will allow them to be brought to a halt in the distance that can be seen to be clear. By your own admission you were driving towards a blind crest at a speed where in your own words you would not have had a chance to stop.

I would suggest respectfully that your story suggests that the elderly cyclists were not the only people who could be accused of breaking the law. Furthermore we have no way of knowing if the intergreen period on the traffic signal is long enough for two elderly cyclists to cross the bridge. It may have been green for them when they passed it.

dukedalton

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The traffic regulations also contain a requirement that vehicles be driven at a speed that will allow them to be brought to a halt in the distance that can be seen to be clear. By your own admission you were driving towards a blind crest at a speed where in your own words you would not have had a chance to stop.

I would suggest respectfully that your story suggests that the elderly cyclists were not the only people who could be accused of breaking the law. Furthermore we have no way of knowing if the intergreen period on the traffic signal is long enough for two elderly cyclists to cross the bridge. It may have been green for them when they passed it.

Unless you are suggesting I should have go out of the car and pushed it over the crest, there is no way of travelling at a speed so slow as to avoid a collision if two fools on bikes are at that precise location at that exact time. Check your Junior Cert science book if you're confused.

And if the intergreen period was not long enough for them to cross, they should have dismounted and crossed on foot on the footpath.

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Under Article 13 of the Traffic and Parking regulations SI 182/1997 it is illegal to drive or cycle on roadside footpaths. Cyclists who do so are liable to be prosecuted.

In theory.

No Pants

Can we just get another forum created called "Two abreast cyclists, cycle lanes, High vis and helmets"? Then the mods can move all related threads in there and the rest of us can ignore them.

corktina

dukedalton wrote: »

Two incidents in the space of half a mile this morning:

1. I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

2. Having crossed the bridge I then came into a line of traffic. It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other. Now, of course they're entitled to use the road, but on a narrow county road such as this, cycling in this way clearly increases the risk of an accident.

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

death sometimes, sometimes undeservedly

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting I should have go out of the car and pushed it over the crest, there is no way of travelling at a speed so slow as to avoid a collision if two fools on bikes are at that precise location at that exact time. Check your Junior Cert science book if you're confused.

Just how high is this crest? Of course you're able to go slow enough to proceed safely, 1st gear without touching the accelerator if you have to.

dukedalton

TheChizler wrote: »

Just how high is this crest? Of course you're able to go slow enough to proceed safely, 1st gear without touching the accelerator if you have to.

You're not.

But then again, I suppose if I was a cyclist and caused a collision by going against the traffic over the crest if a hill, I'd be using every excuse I could think of, however far fetched.

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

You're not.

I'm baffled as to how this is the case. 5-7 km/h is too fast to stop when someone appears on a crest in the road? Exactly where is this?

corktina

TheChizler wrote: »

Just how high is this crest? Of course you're able to go slow enough to proceed safely, 1st gear without touching the accelerator if you have to.

he's on a one lane bridge controlled by lights and his is green. He's entitled to think he wont meet someone coming at him. It's probably the design of the light system to blame in that it doesn't allow cyclists enough time to reach the crown of the rise before allowing traffic through the other way.

dukedalton

corktina wrote: »

he's on a one lane bridge controlled by lights and his is green. He's entitled to think he wont meet someone coming at him. It's probably the design of the light system to blame in that it doesn't allow cyclists enough time to reach the crown of the rise before allowing traffic through the other way.

But there is a footpath where they could dismount and cross safely.

corktina

Common Sense is not a trait much evident in us old people....

TheChizler

corktina wrote: »

he's on a one lane bridge controlled by lights and his is green. He's entitled to think he wont meet someone coming at him. It's probably the design of the light system to blame in that it doesn't allow cyclists enough time to reach the crown of the rise before allowing traffic through the other way.

I'm not defending the cyclists here, it could have been some debris on the road or someone collapsed or an animal or a car broken down. But from these posts it seems like they felt they had no option but to drive blind effectively.

corktina

they had the option to dismount as said....for their own safety, it would have been a good idea, but they are also entitled to assume the lights would give them enough time to reach a safe position

Canis Lupus

I'm thinking thinking of creating a thread titled: Motorists: Rules of the road apply to you too.

SeanW

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm thinking thinking of creating a thread titled: Motorists: Rules of the road apply to you too.

Great, create such a thread and please feel free to show us large majorities of Irish MOTORISTS disregarding red lights and menacing pedestrians off the footpath?

TheChizler

SeanW wrote: »

Great, create such a thread and please feel free to show us large majorities of Irish MOTORISTS disregarding red lights and menacing pedestrians off the footpath?

That wasn't claimed in this thread so in the interest of fairness I think there should only be two individual examples of driving slowly.

Canis Lupus

SeanW wrote: »

Great, create such a thread and please feel free to show us large majorities of Irish MOTORISTS disregarding red lights and menacing pedestrians off the footpath?

I like that word, menacing

Some cyclists break the rules. Some motorists break the rules. Or better yet, some road users break the rules. No on has the high ground in this most pointless of topics.

SeanW

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I like that word, menacing

Some cyclists break the rules. Some motorists break the rules. Or better yet, some road users break the rules. No on has the high ground in this most pointless of topics.

Doesn't stop people in certain quarters (mostly cyclists :rolleyes: ) from claiming to.

bigar

I have to say that many traffic lights are not taking into account bicycle speeds. There are many crossings where when I start crossing it is green and by the time I am across the lights have changed and traffic started moving towards me before I am able to get across. I did not break any laws but cars of course immediately start reacting violently. I now try to avoid these crossing as much as I can.

I can imagine something similar happening on your bridge.

If this is the case, I do not see why these cyclist would need to dismount. Just stop your car and let them pass. It will cost you no more than a few seconds.

A lot of drivers seem to think that a green light means everyone else needs to stop to let them go through where it really only means you can pass it and continue your journey.

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

If this is the case, I do not see why these cyclist would need to dismount. Just stop your car and let them pass.

The point is that because of the position they put themselves in a driver came very close to not having that option.

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

The point is that because of the position they put themselves in a driver came very close to not having that option.

The driver seemed just fine and was able to stop. Motorists (and pedestrians) often seem to go into "what if" situations when trying to blame cyclist for road conditions.

The title of your thread is "Cyclist: Rules of the road apply to you to", so you say that it is the cyclists who broke the rules, where it is obvious here no one knows for sure.

bigar

corktina wrote: »

he's on a one lane bridge controlled by lights and his is green. He's entitled to think he wont meet someone coming at him.

No really correct. A green light just means you can proceed with caution. Many (most) seem to make that misconception.

corktina

bigar wrote: »

No really correct. A green light just means you can proceed with caution. Many (most) seem to make that misconception.

really?:rolleyes:

endacl

corktina wrote: »

really?:rolleyes:

Really.

corktina

well! you live and learn...I thought you had to proceed with caution at all times.

L1011

Had to work in Ranelagh for two days last week, needing the van (would have probably gone out on the Luas otherwise despite the awkward transfer to that line from Connolly).

Far more cyclists out there than I was expecting. At least 80% of them had abject disregard for traffic signals and lane discipline. Time to get a dash cam fitted I think.

Jawgap

MYOB wrote: »

Had to work in Ranelagh for two days last week, needing the van (would have probably gone out on the Luas otherwise despite the awkward transfer to that line from Connolly).

Far more cyclists out there than I was expecting. At least 80% of them had abject disregard for traffic signals and lane discipline. Time to get a dash cam fitted I think.

That's all those D6 hipsters and UCD students for you......


.......had do you know their disregard was 'abject' not just normal disregard;)

SeanW

MYOB wrote: »

Had to work in Ranelagh for two days last week, needing the van (would have probably gone out on the Luas otherwise despite the awkward transfer to that line from Connolly).

Far more cyclists out there than I was expecting. At least 80% of them had abject disregard for traffic signals and lane discipline. Time to get a dash cam fitted I think.

Yeah, I really should have had my phone cam out to video that dipstick on Gardiner St. would have been a comedy goldmine.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge.

Can you provide a StreetView link for reference?

No Pants

MYOB wrote: »

Time to get a dash cam fitted I think.

Has anyone on here ever used a dashcam in a way that gave a return on the investment?

monument

dukedalton wrote: »

1. I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way. Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

You're required to proceed with caution: That includes not driving fast over a blind crest.

As others have said: It's not clear that the cyclists broke the lights so they may not be going the "wrong way". No rules broken here.

dukedalton wrote: »

2. Having crossed the bridge I then came into a line of traffic. It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other. Now, of course they're entitled to use the road, but on a narrow county road such as this, cycling in this way clearly increases the risk of an accident.

Cycling two abreast is not against the rules.

And cycling in this way does not clearly increase the risk of an accident -- in fact, there's a lot to the idea that it stops motorists from overtaking on blind corners or blind crests of hills etc.

dukedalton wrote: »

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

Yes.

dukedalton wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting I should have go out of the car and pushed it over the crest, there is no way of travelling at a speed so slow as to avoid a collision if two fools on bikes are at that precise location at that exact time. Check your Junior Cert science book if you're confused.

And if the intergreen period was not long enough for them to cross, they should have dismounted and crossed on foot on the footpath.

If they were doing nothing wrong, why exactly should they have dismounted and pushed but you should not do the same... or at least gone slower?

More seriously: You can't be sure that they were aware that the light sequence would not give them enough time.

SeanW wrote: »

In theory.

No. Sean there it is illegal and there are prosecutions, but just like the masses of motorists who park on footpaths and the even greater amount who speed in urban areas only a small percentage every get to court.

Even with manual enforcement (ie enforcement by gardai) here's also an extent of targeting motorists more because it's easier to fine them -- that will radically changed when the on-the-spot fines for cyclists are in place next year.

For the record: I overall welcome on-the-spot fines. I hate when cyclists break lights or cycle on footpaths.

L1011

No Pants wrote: »

Has anyone on here ever used a dashcam in a way that gave a return on the investment?

On the Motors forum, people have been able to ensure that they didn't get dicked over on insurance claims. We're not quite Russia for them yet though.

dukedalton

monument wrote: »

You're required to proceed with caution: That includes not driving fast over a blind crest.

As others have said: It's not clear that the cyclists broke the lights so they may not be going the "wrong way". No rules broken here.

If they were doing nothing wrong, why exactly should they have dismounted and pushed but you should not do the same... or at least gone slower?

More seriously: You can't be sure that they were aware that the light sequence would not give them enough time.
.

1. I was not driving fast. I was proceeding with caution. That's why they're not in hospital this evening.

2. Lance Armstrong himself wouldn't be able to cross up and over that bridge before the lights turned red. So for two elderly people to attempt to do it was the height of stupidity. In the event, they made it less than half way. The safe thing to do would have been to dismount and walk over the footpath. But from what I've read on here, common sense and the pro-cyclist brigade seem to be uneasy bedfellows.

No Pants

dukedalton wrote: »

1. I was not driving fast. I was proceeding with caution. That's why they're not in hospital this evening.

2. Lance Armstrong himself wouldn't be able to cross up and over that bridge before the lights turned red. So for two elderly people to attempt to do it was the height of stupidity. In the event, they made it less than half way. The safe thing to do would have been to dismount and walk over the footpath. But from what I've read on here, common sense and the pro-cyclist brigade seem to be uneasy bedfellows.

What you're suggesting isn't common sense, it's one of the most retarded ideas that I've read this week. Well done you and your sense of achievement for not hospitalising two elderly people.

monument

dukedalton wrote: »

1. I was not driving fast. I was proceeding with caution. That's why they're not in hospital this evening.

2. Lance Armstrong himself wouldn't be able to cross up and over that bridge before the lights turned red. So for two elderly people to attempt to do it was the height of stupidity. In the event, they made it less than half way. The safe thing to do would have been to dismount and walk over the footpath. But from what I've read on here, common sense and the pro-cyclist brigade seem to be uneasy bedfellows.

Where exactly is this bridge?

dukedalton

No Pants wrote: »

What you're suggesting isn't common sense, it's one of the most retarded ideas that I've read this week. Well done you and your sense of achievement for not hospitalising two elderly people.

Troll on

Iwannahurl

OP, can you provide a StreetView link to the exact location please?

No Pants

dukedalton wrote: »

Troll on

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you with your suggestion that other road users leave the road altogether when their presence becomes inconvenient to you.

dukedalton

No Pants wrote: »

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you with your suggestion that other road users leave the road altogether when their presence becomes inconvenient to you.

You weren't out cycling today, by any chance?

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

2. Lance Armstrong himself wouldn't be able to cross up and over that bridge before the lights turned red. So for two elderly people to attempt to do it was the height of stupidity. In the event, they made it less than half way. The safe thing to do would have been to dismount and walk over the footpath.

So how are they to know this? They pass the light when it was green so they proceed. Also: how would they know that over the crest cars already started moving until they see a car in front of them?
When they see the car, the car sees them and stops so the cyclist pass and proceed. Perhaps if they were not able to pass they would have decided to dismount. If it was me, I probably would not.

You can even argue that you drove off when the road ahead of you was not free. Just remove the bridge and change the situation to a flat road with same road situation and full view over the whole road. If you would see traffic coming your way on a single lane, would you proceed when it turned green?

Without further information both you and the cyclists had a right to be there. You could not see them and they could not see you. Neither of you did anything wrong but I agree it may be a dangerous road set up.

But from what I've read on here, common sense and the pro-cyclist brigade seem to be uneasy bedfellows.

Common sense as in carefully going on a road you cannot fully see? There are so many thing that could be over the crest: a child playing, a broken down car, a dog, anything. But because it were cyclists you decide to have a good moan about it; and as you of course have car, they needed to get out of the way immediately.

No Pants

dukedalton wrote: »

You weren't out cycling today, by any chance?

Sorry, no. Had other duties. There are two places that to me sound similar to what you've described; coming into Leixlip from the Maynooth direction and coming into Dunboyne from Clonee. Can't recall if the rise at either location is one lane or two. Never had a problem getting over either.

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

So how are they to know this? They pass the light when it was green so they proceed. Also: how would they know that over the crescent cars already started moving until they see a car in front of them?
When they see the car, the car sees them and stops so the cyclist pass and proceed. Perhaps if they were not able to pass they would have decided to dismount. If it was me, I probably would not.

You can even argue that you drove off when the road ahead of you was not free. Just remove the crescent and change the situation to a flat road with same road situation and full view over the whole road. If you would see traffic coming your way on a single lane, would you proceed when it turned green?


Common sense as in carefully going on a road you cannot fully see? There are so many thing that could be over the crescent: a child playing, a broken down car, a dog, anything. But because it were cyclists you decide to have a good moan about it; and as you of course have car, they needed to get out of the way immediately.

This is getting better and better...

I drove off when the road was not free? It's a hill! As good as my eyesight is I can't see through tarmac to the other side!

bigar

I too would be interested to know where the "battlefield" was.

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

This is getting better and better...

I drove off when the road was not free? It's a hill! As good as my eyesight is I can't see through tarmac to the other side!

As I say "You could argue..." so they could also not see you.