Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

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.

RossieMan

Why do all cyclists get painted with the same brush?

Just because some break the laws, not all of us do.

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

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

You said I shouldn't have moved off because I couldn't be sure the road is clear. Take that to its logical conclusion. Nobody at either side of the bridge should cross it. Ever.

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

You said I shouldn't have moved off because I couldn't be sure the road is clear. Take that to its logical conclusion. Nobody at either side of the bridge should cross it. Ever.

Thank you for validating my point that both of you had the right to be there.

monument

The OP seems strangely unwilling to provide the location, even after been asked a few times, so I'm suspecting something amiss and am very close to closing the thread.

Also note accusing people of trolling in-tread is against the rules.

As usual, do not reply to this notice.

- moderator

bigar

RossieMan wrote: »

Why do all cyclists get painted with the same brush?

Just because some break the laws, not all of us do.

No one broke the law here. To generalise: just another motorist who was delayed 30 seconds by cyclists and decides to spend his whole Sunday moaning about it

TheBandicoot

monument wrote: »

Also note accusing people of trolling in-tread is against the rules.

Isn't that exactly what this is? :

monument wrote: »

The OP seems strangely unwilling to provide the location, even after been asked a few times, so I'm suspecting something amiss

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

No one broke the law here. To generalise: just another motorist who was delayed 30 seconds by cyclists and decides to spend his whole Sunday moaning about it.

I don't mind being delayed. I do mind people behaving stupidly on the road.

Not sure what the conspiracy theory is as regards to location, but it's the bridge beside Leixlip Confey train station.

bigar

dukedalton wrote: »

I don't mind being delayed. I do mind people behaving stupidly on the road.

Amen to that!

it's the bridge beside Leixlip Confey train station.

Thanks, I will go there and measure the time the lights are green. Will be nice addition to my black book with crossings where the time between green is to short for cyclist to cross safely.

I may even see the two old cyclists. They do not even know they are now minor celebrities.

dukedalton

bigar wrote: »

Amen to that!



Thanks, I will go there and measure the time the lights are green. Will be nice addition to my black book with crossings where the time between green is to short for cyclist to cross safely.

I may even see the two old cyclists. They do not even know they are now minor celebrities.

Honestly, it is quite generous. The main danger is that it's actually green too long and people race over even after the light has gone red for them. But that's another day's argument.

monument

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what this is? :

Some clues highlighted for you:



Read the charter.

- moderator