Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

overshoot

dukedalton wrote: »

Hard to make out most of that. It's hard to engage in a meaningful discussion if the other person's argument features such poor punctuation.

Well it was written on my phone during a quick lunch break and I've had about 15 hours sleep since thursday so i think it was a decent effort considering but i can at least be reasonable and admit you couldn't know that and apologise if its not worth your time and effort. It could have been better.
For future reference however, if your going to complain about poorly constructed text, at least don't follow it with a unfinished sentence and use a verb where appropriate.

Anyway it appears it made enough sense to those with reasoned arguments so I don't feel the need to edit it, it appears you see what you want to. If you wish to discredit my original point and not my grammar I may return.

dukedalton

overshoot wrote: »

Well it was written on my phone during a quick lunch break and I've had about 15 hours sleep since thursday so i think it was a decent effort considering but i can at least be reasonable and admit you couldn't know that and apologise if its not worth your time and effort. It could have been better.
For future reference however, if your going to complain about poorly constructed text, at least don't follow it with a unfinished sentence and use a verb where appropriate.

Anyway it appears it made enough sense to those with reasoned arguments so I don't feel the need to edit it, it appears you see what you want to. If you wish to discredit my original point and not my grammar I may return.

Don't rush back.

dukedalton

Anyway, fourteen pages later I accept that there is no proof that the cyclists broke the rules of the road.

However, I maintain that in the circumstances their attempting to cross the bridge in the way they did was dangerous and stupid. Anyone who has used the road for any length of time will be aware that there are drivers out there (not me, I hasten to add) who do drive with excessive speed and putting yourself in a position whereby you are facing traffic coming against you over a one-lane hill is foolhardy. Yes, we all know you should expect the unexpected, but I'm sure we've all seen drivers who do not. I would argue that most drivers would not be expecting to see two cyclists coming towards them as they pass the crest of a bridge, therefore the cyclists put themselves in danger. If I was a cyclist, I would dismount and cross using the footpath.

As for those quoting chapter and verse at me, perhaps you should think more about what's right, rather than just your rights.

All the best.

07Lapierre

dukedalton wrote: »

Anyway, fourteen pages later I accept that there is no proof that the cyclists broke the rules of the road.

However, I maintain that in the circumstances their attempting to cross the bridge in the way they did was dangerous and stupid. Anyone who has used the road for any length of time will be aware that there are drivers out there (not me, I hasten to add) who do drive with excessive speed and putting yourself in a position whereby you are facing traffic coming against you over a one-lane hill is foolhardy. Yes, we all know you should expect the unexpected, but I'm sure we've all seen drivers who do not. I would argue that most drivers would not be expecting to see two cyclists coming towards them as they pass the crest of a bridge, therefore the cyclists put themselves in danger. If I was a cyclist, I would dismount and cross using the footpath.

As for those quoting chapter and verse at me, perhaps you should think more about what's right, rather than just your rights.

All the best.

"If you can't beat them...join them" why not try cycling and you 'll see this debate from a cyclists perspective?

steamengine

OP mentioned two abreast cyclists holding up a line of traffic - looking up the most recent ROTR, here is an additional quote concerning two abreast cycling:-

In the company of one or more cyclists you must have due regard to other users of the road, and you must take full account of prevailing road conditions.
On occasion it may be safe to cycle two abreast, but you must not cycle in a
manner likely to create an obstruction for other users.

Generally I find both cyclists and motorists a reasonable lot but unfortunately there are zealots out their on their bikes and gobsh!tes in cars - c'est la vie !

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

No more! Please!

He'd be able to know that the odd motorist breaks the traffic light by traveling towards the light in the same direction as the odd car -- which would not be a mammoth task for any even irregular user of any junction in the country.

Get over your motorist vs cyclist obsession - the vast, vast majority of Irish cyclists are also motorists.

I don't have a motorist vs cyclist obsession which doesn't mean that you don't have a cyclist vs motorist obsession.

You see I can quite willingly accept that ALL traffic could have broken a red light, after all we see cyclists as well as motorists breaking red lights on a regular basis.

However for whatever reason you can't seem to accept the fact that 2 old gentlemen or any other cyclist could just as easily have been clowns and broken the red light also.

Spook_ie

limklad wrote: »

Can you please explain and point to Law where this two abreast cycling is illegal?
Quote:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/...zsi294y1964a29
Driving two abreast
[29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

Afraid you got that one wrong the new regs are
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html
Subtle wording differences, does the last half a sentence ( bold and italics by me for easy ID ) refer to the 3rd cyclist or the 1st and 2nd.? I reckon it applies to the 3rd but could be read either way

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.


(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.


(3) A pedal cyclist facing traffic sign number RTS 006 or RTS 007 (cycle traffic lights) in which one lamp is lit and which shows a symbol of a pedal cycle in green, may proceed beyond that traffic sign provided no other road user is endangered.


(4) Where traffic sign number RTS 006 or RTS 007 (cycle traffic lights) is provided, and a lamp in that traffic sign is lit and shows a symbol of a pedal cycle in red, a person shall not drive a pedal cycle past the traffic sign.


(5) Where traffic sign number—


(i) RTS 006 is provided and a lamp in the traffic sign is lit on an intermittent basis showing a symbol of a pedal cycle in green, or


(ii) RTS 007 is provided and a lamp in the traffic sign is lit showing a symbol of a pedal cyclist in amber,


a pedal cyclist may not cross the road unless he or she has begun to do so while a lamp showing a symbol of a pedal cycle in green is lit on a constant basis.

ezra_pound

Spook_ie wrote: »

Afraid you got that one wrong the new regs are
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html
Subtle wording differences, does the last half a sentence ( bold and italics by me for easy ID ) refer to the 3rd cyclist or the 1st and 2nd.? I reckon it applies to the 3rd but could be read either way

This only refers to the third cyclist who is overtaking the first two.

Spook_ie

ezra_pound wrote: »

This only refers to the third cyclist who is overtaking the first two.

Legal opinion or just like mine layman?

ezra_pound

Spook_ie wrote: »

Legal opinion or just like mine layman?

I'm not a legal professional but in the English language it can only refer to cyclist 3, not to cyclists 1 and two.

Spook_ie

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm not a legal professional but in the English language it can only refer to cyclist 3, not to cyclists 1 and two.

Queens English or Irish English? I do seriously ask because I have so often ran into trouble with the other half when I correct her about "Hot Press" and "Airing Cupboard"

ezra_pound

Spook_ie wrote: »

Queens English or Irish English? I do seriously ask because I have so often ran into trouble with the other half when I correct her about "Hot Press" and "Airing Cupboard"

47. (1) A young fella on a bike shall not cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Spook_ie

ezra_pound wrote: »

47. (1) A young fella on a bike shall not cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Touché but I can't help wondering why the removal of the brackets from the 1964 version

Victor

steamengine wrote: »

enerally I find both cyclists and motorists a reasonable lot but unfortunately there are zealots out their on their bikes and gobsh!tes in cars - c'est la vie !

Spook_ie wrote: »

any other cyclist could just as easily have been clowns and broken the red light also.

Tone down the name calling please.

Moderator

limklad

Spook_ie wrote: »

Afraid you got that one wrong the new regs are
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html
Subtle wording differences, does the last half a sentence ( bold and italics by me for easy ID ) refer to the 3rd cyclist or the 1st and 2nd.? I reckon it applies to the 3rd but could be read either way

Those regs are one year old. Thanks for the update.

I hate the way they amend previous acts and it take time to go over each one to find out which is still valid. I wish they give an update version of all the Road Traffic regulations that are in force in one document to show what is in force.
No wonder Solicitors are spending a lot of time studying Laws and causing us their clients lots of money to representative us in court. The whole courts time is been wasted as they have to pour over each act and regulation to figure out which is in force and which is not, especially when the alleged offence committed is a rare one to be charge with. The whole system have been made complicated by Politicians\governments. They can do this by repealing previous acts and give update Act to replace it. There is huge amount of Acts been amended by subsequent Acts and regulations.

Look at ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 2002, the huge amount of amending of Previous acts especially ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961 when penalty points are inserted, yet read the online version ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961 there is no mentioned that the act has been amended by subsequent acts or regulation by the minister responsible.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/print.html

I may do it as a project and get each piece of Road Traffic legislation together with what been changed over the years.

Surveyor11

limklad wrote: »

Those regs are one year old. Thanks for the update.

I hate the way they amend previous acts and it take time to go over each one to find out which is still valid. I wish they give an update version of all the Road Traffic regulations that are in force in one document to show what is in force.
No wonder Solicitors are spending a lot of time studying Laws and causing us their clients lots of money to representative us in court. The whole courts time is been wasted as they have to pour over each act and regulation to figure out which is in force and which is not, especially when the alleged offence committed is a rare one to be charge with. The whole system have been made complicated by Politicians\governments. They can do this by repealing previous acts and give update Act to replace it. There is huge amount of Acts been amended by subsequent Acts and regulations.

Look at ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 2002, the huge amount of amending of Previous acts especially ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961 when penalty points are inserted, yet read the online version ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961 there is no mentioned that the act has been amended by subsequent acts or regulation by the minister responsible.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/print.html

I may do it as a project and get each piece of Road Traffic legislation together with what been changed over the years.

Not a lawyer and apologies for going off topic, but the latest legislation usually recites the old ones that have been rescinded in the front. Hope this helps.

bk

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

This quote clearly states 3 cyclists abreast or more.

So 2 cyclists abreast is perfectly legal at all times.

Even 3 cyclists abreast is legal when overtaking or at times when it doesn't endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

bk

This whole thread is a depressing microcosm of the whole motorist vs cyclists theme we have seen increasing over the whole year.

- Motorist angrily accuses cyclists of doing something illegal (breaking red lights)

- After some questioning, it turns out that the cyclists probably didn't do anything illegal (they didn't break a red light).

- Turns out that the motorist themselves might have done something illegal or at least dangerous (proceeding without due care, going at a speed not suited to the road conditions).

- Motorist claims that despite cyclists doing nothing wrong, they should get out of his way as cars should have primacy and a driver might hit the cyclists!

But what so many people here seem to be missing is that the root cause of this issue was badly designed infrastructure, that doesn't take into account pedestrians and cyclists and favours cars.

Can people please stop with the whole motorists versus cyclists thing. Motorists need to have a better understanding of the challenges faced by cyclists and slow down. Cyclists need to be more respectful of the rules of the road.

But all of this is a distraction from the most important point. We need to have vastly better dutch style segregated cycling and pedestrian infrastructure so that these type of issues between motorists and cyclists don't even arise in the first place.

galwaycyclist

bk wrote: »

But all of this is a distraction from the most important point. We need to have vastly better dutch style segregated cycling and pedestrian infrastructure so that these type of issues between motorists and cyclists don't even arise in the first place.

With respect we are not going to get better infrastructure for a long time. If we want current Dutch levels of provision we are looking at a 30-40 year program.

At the end of that program we will still have numerous places where motorists and cyclists will find themselves in close proximity. Unless you challenge the attitude demonstrated by the OP the problem will remain.

If your Dutch infrastructure is designed, built and managed by people with the same attitude as the OP it will end up trying to prioritise car movements at the expense of other forms of transport. The infrastructure will be "Dutch inspired" but it will not work the way it works in the Netherlands and may make cycling less attractive, less convenient and more dangerous.

This outcome is inevitable unless you first challenge and change the underlying attitudes.

ardmacha

But what so many people here seem to be missing is that the root cause of this issue was badly designed infrastructure, that doesn't take into account pedestrians and cyclists and favours cars.

Are you suggesting that anyone is free to break the law, if they perceive an imbalance in public policy?

hardCopy

ardmacha wrote: »

Are you suggesting that anyone is free to break the law, if they perceive an imbalance in public policy?

You missed this bit in your quote:

bk wrote: »

- Motorist angrily accuses cyclists of doing something illegal (breaking red lights)

- After some questioning, it turns out that the cyclists probably didn't do anything illegal (they didn't break a red light).

bk

ardmacha wrote: »

Are you suggesting that anyone is free to break the law, if they perceive an imbalance in public policy?

Where did I say that?

The cyclists in this situation weren't breaking the law. The OP "might" have been breaking the law by going too fast.

What I said there is very clear, a dangerous situation arose here because of badly designed infrastructure.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Where did I say that?

The cyclists in this situation weren't breaking the law. The OP "might" have been breaking the law by going too fast.

What I said there is very clear, a dangerous situation arose here because of badly designed infrastructure.

There is no evidence either way to support or refute allegations of wrong doing by either party ( motorist or cyclist ) so why is it that the only person you refer to as "might" have been breaking the law is the motorist?

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no evidence either way to support or refute allegations of wrong doing by either party ( motorist or cyclist ) so why is it that the only person you refer to as "might" have been breaking the law is the motorist?

Because the OP admitted to behaviour that is unlawful. We can only speculate about the elderly cyclists but the OP's driving behaviour is not a matter of speculation.

Edit: I would view the word "might" as something that would be used in polite conversation in place of the word "actually".

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Because the OP admitted to behaviour that is unlawful. We can only speculate about the elderly cyclists but the OP's driving behaviour is not a matter of speculation.

Edit: I would view the word "might" as something that would be used in polite conversation in place of the word "actually".

Where has the OP admitted to unlawful behavior?

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where has the OP admitted to unlawful behavior?

dukedalton wrote: »

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.

In my reading the op clearly admits driving in a manner that is contrary to the general obligation regarding speed.

General Obligation Regarding Speed

7. A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt within the distance which the driver can see to be clear.

John_C

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where has the OP admitted to unlawful behavior?

.

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.

Edit: never mind, galway cyclist can type quicker than me.

dukedalton

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In my reading the op clearly admits driving in a manner that is contrary to the general obligation regarding speed.

Complete rubbish. No matter what speed you're travelling at (very slow, in my case), there is a point on a bridge just as you come to the crest where if a cyclist/motorist is coming towards you, your ability to stop is severly limited. As you get to the top of the bridge, how can you see what's just the other side? The distance you know to be clear is negligible. Instead of trawling through the statutes, draw yourself a picture and work it out.

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In my reading the op clearly admits driving in a manner that is contrary to the general obligation regarding speed.

dukedalton wrote: »

Complete rubbish. No matter what speed you're travelling at (very slow, in my case), there is a point on a bridge just as you come to the crest where if a cyclist/motorist is coming towards you, your ability to stop is severly limited. As you get to the top of the bridge, how can you see what's just the other side? The distance you know to be clear is negligible. Instead of trawling through the statutes, draw yourself a picture and work it out.

So you were there and saw that he was driving too fast, or you surmise that he might have been driving too fast, or he admitted he was driving too fast?

bk

dukedalton wrote: »

Complete rubbish. No matter what speed you're travelling at (very slow, in my case), there is a point on a bridge just as you come to the crest where if a cyclist/motorist is coming towards you, your ability to stop is severly limited. As you get to the top of the bridge, how can you see what's just the other side? The distance you know to be clear is negligible. Instead of trawling through the statutes, draw yourself a picture and work it out.

If you were driving at just walking pace, then you can easily stop if something unexpected was ahead of you.

galwaycyclist

dukedalton wrote: »

Complete rubbish. No matter what speed you're travelling at (very slow, in my case), there is a point on a bridge just as you come to the crest where if a cyclist/motorist is coming towards you, your ability to stop is severly limited. As you get to the top of the bridge, how can you see what's just the other side? The distance you know to be clear is negligible. Instead of trawling through the statutes, draw yourself a picture and work it out.

As a rule, when I find myself driving up slopes in my car I find that my ability to stop is much enhanced. Could you perhaps be accustomed driving in a manner and speed that significantly reduces the normal effect of gravity?

John_C

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you were there and saw that he was driving too fast, or you surmise that he might have been driving too fast, or he admitted he was driving too fast?

He admitted to driving to fast. In the post I highlighted earlier he says he wouldn't have been able to stop if he's been a few yards further on when he saw the cyclists.

furiousox

bk wrote: »

....Can people please stop with the whole motorists versus cyclists thing. Motorists need to have a better understanding of the challenges faced by cyclists and slow down. Cyclists need to be more respectful of the rules of the road..

Every one of these "today I saw a motorist/cyclist do something stupid" threads should be closed immediately with the above quote used as reference.

hardCopy

furiousox wrote: »

Every one of these "today I saw a motorist/cyclist do something stupid" threads should be closed immediately with the above quote used as reference.

I'd probably throw in liberal use of the word "some"

dukedalton

bk wrote: »

If you were driving at just walking pace, then you can easily stop if something unexpected was ahead of you.

And what if that thing is coming straight at you?

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

And what if that thing is coming straight at you?

Your options are to either stop or continue, what do you think would be better?

dukedalton

TheChizler wrote: »

Your options are to either stop or continue, what do you think would be better?

As I've already explained, there is a scenario in which there might not be a choice.

Try a little harder to keep up with the discussion.

Spook_ie

John_C wrote: »

He admitted to driving to fast. In the post I highlighted earlier he says he wouldn't have been able to stop if he's been a few yards further on when he saw the cyclists.

You have no idea if he was accelerating, braking or maintaining a constant speed, the fact that he didn't hit the cyclists is (if anything) proof that he wasn't going too fast. What if situations are hardly evidential

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

As I've already explained, there is a scenario in which there might not be a choice.

Try a little harder to keep up with the discussion.

You've said that multiple times but failed to explain how it's it's impossible to stop from walking pace at the crest if the bridge. Unless your eyeline is only a few feet off the ground and the cyclists are on children's tricycles you're going to have several metres between you and them when you spot them. I don't see how you can't stop on time from walking pace. Especially as you're going uphill.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

You've said that multiple times but failed to explain how it's it's impossible to stop from walking pace at the crest if the bridge. Unless your eyeline is only a few feet off the ground and the cyclists are on children's tricycles you're going to have several metres between you and them when you spot them. I don't see how you can't stop on time from walking pace. Especially as you're going uphill.

Rightly or wrongly would walking pace create more problems than it solves? The lights presumably have some kind of sequence if someone drives/cycles at too slow a speed then the light cycle gets out of sync to the traffic using the lights.

bk

dukedalton wrote: »

And what if that thing is coming straight at you?

Well if you were travelling at walking pace, then I would assume one or the other party will have plenty of time to see the other and stop.

Even if they don't and do collide, at walking pace minimal damage would happen and almost no chance of fatality.

Again the rules of the road are clear on this, only proceed if safe to do so and at a safe speed to do so.

If you are travelling at a speed that you can't stop in time due to not being able to see ahead of you, then you are driving in a dangerous manner.

bambergbike

The OP has already been given various reasons why the cyclists didn't push their bikes along the footpath instead of cycling on the road, but I'd like to add to that list a bit.

Earlier this year, when I was guiding twenty cyclists aged between 75 and 79 on a four-day leisure tour, I noticed that several of them didn't have the upper body strength to push their bikes uphill comfortably when we came to bridges and similar short, sharp rises. They had made the switch to heavy electric-assist bikes because they needed a bit of extra power specifically for little rises like roads up to bridges. But sometimes another cyclist would stop suddenly in front of them, to get off and push, and then they would be forced to dismount and push as well; they really struggled then. Bikes make good Zimmer frames, but pushing a heavy bike uphill is still tricky. Pushing a heavy trike is almost impossible. It's also worth noting that some elderly people with Parkinson's can balance easily on bikes, but may have difficulty walking; others need trikes.

Elderly people cycling more and driving less is something that benefits everybody. Cycling is slower than driving, so having slower reflexes creates fewer problems. Partial sight loss is not as problematic when people aren't looking at the world through a windscreen. Partial hearing loss is less of a problem when hearing is not compromised by being enclosed in a noisy vehicle. Elderly people on bikes are, frankly, much less dangerous than (some) elderly people driving cars; the OP should be rejoicing that the elderly people he met in an awkward spot were NOT driving instead of carping about what they were doing on his road. If they had actually been in the wrong part of the road at the wrong time - and I don't believe they were - the potential for damage would have been insignificant enough as long as they were not in a car.

The flip side of this is that elderly people can only reasonably be expected to cycle more and to drive less (or give driving up altogether) if all road users go out of their way to give them space. Merely avoiding crashes is not good enough - collisions need to be avoided by generous margins. It's not unusual for elderly cyclists to hit the deck and break a hip in an incident involving no actual physical contact between vehicles, one that would count as a near-miss if it involved a younger cyclist. Stopping in time means: stopping early enough to avoid terrorizing other road users, not just stopping before you hit them.

I was somewhat shocked to hear a sixty-year old recently wondering mournfully whether she had just bought her last bicycle. However, I live in hope that she will use it wisely, be dealt a fair hand by her fellow road users and eventually graduate to one of these after fifteen or twenty years. With all the accessories - indicators, mirrors, an electric motor for hills, a trailer for shopping, a clip for attaching a crutch ...

Victor

dukedalton wrote: »

As I've already explained, there is a scenario in which there might not be a choice.

Try a little harder to keep up with the discussion.

Less of the snarky attitude please

Moderator

Victor

limklad wrote: »

It is obvious that you did not know rules of the road, along with the cyclists you claim to be breaking Road traffic Laws. It is a 264 page document. The last few ones are blank so do not worry about those ones.

Less of the patronising attitude please.

Moderator

Ninap

Didn't we have this debate before, like a million times? i'm pretty sure everyone (sensible) agreed that i) cycling is great for individuals and society and should be encouraged ii) despite that, cycling provision is mainly dire in this country iii) motorists often have little regard for cyclists, sometimes with lethal consequences iv) some cyclists disobey the rules of the road, mainly because the rules make no provision for cycling as something distinct from driving.

Bye now

Spook_ie

Ninap wrote: »

Didn't we have this debate before, like a million times? i'm pretty sure everyone (sensible) agreed that i) cycling is great for individuals and society and should be encouraged ii) despite that, cycling provision is mainly dire in this country iii) motorists often have little regard for cyclists, sometimes with lethal consequences iv) some cyclists disobey the rules of the road, mainly because the rules make no provision for cycling as something distinct from driving.

Bye now

Bye now, just remember that cyclists are classified as road traffic and are subject to the same laws and responsibilities as others

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly would walking pace create more problems than it solves? The lights presumably have some kind of sequence if someone drives/cycles at too slow a speed then the light cycle gets out of sync to the traffic using the lights.

With regret you are open to the suggestion that you are reducing things to absurdity. Clearly for some distance either side of the crest it should be possible to travel safely at higher speeds provided the way is clear and the vehicle is capable of being halted in that space.

I would argue that the question is not whether people should drive to suit the lights but whether the timing set on the lights is consistent with safe driver behaviour?

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret you are open to the suggestion that you are reducing things to absurdity. Clearly for some distance either side of the crest it should be possible to travel safely at higher speeds provided the way is clear and the vehicle is capable of being halted in that space.

I would argue that the question is not whether people should drive to suit the lights but whether the timing set on the lights is consistent with safe driver behaviour?

Don't think so, someone said walking pace I merely ask the question if people slowed to walking pace 5 or 10 meters either side of the crest, would that in itself not create a problem, you cannot isolate one thing from another if they are interconnected.

Just out of interest are you now advocating driving at speed ( not speeding though) between the lights and then at some point approaching to the crest slowing down to a walking pace or what?

Cookie_Monster

How high and steep is this bridge crest that you can't see a cyclist that is at least 1.5m high off the ground from a decent distance back?

bk wrote: »

But all of this is a distraction from the most important point. We need to have vastly better dutch style segregated cycling and pedestrian infrastructure so that these type of issues between motorists and cyclists don't even arise in the first place.

Segregated infrastructure only adds to the 'us v them' attitude on the roads and won't help. What we need is more properly shared road space and the education that pedestrians and cyclists have the same rights as motorists on the roads.

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, someone said walking pace I merely ask the question if people slowed to walking pace 5 or 10 meters either side of the crest, would that in itself not create a problem, you cannot isolate one thing from another if they are interconnected.

No that isnt what you asked and no I dont think that would be a problem.

Just out of interest are you now advocating driving at speed ( not speeding though) between the lights and then at some point approaching to the crest slowing down to a walking pace or what?

I would again bring your attention to the general legal obligation regarding speed. In law, you are clearly and at all times expected to adapt your speed to both the road conditions and the condition (e.g stopping performance) of your vehicle.

What part of that is it that you find so hard to understand?

Edit: To try and clear this up for you - whether a driver needs to slow to walking pace or not is entirely dependent on what they can see and how their vehicle behaves. While one driver may need to drive at walking pace at a particular place another may be able to drive at 30km/h at the same location-because they have better brakes, their cab is higher and so on. If the first driver has poor view for some reason or bad brakes then walking speed may still be too fast. What is important is not the actual speed but your ability to stop. If you cannot stop for an obstruction then you are driving too fast for the conditions.