note to cyclist in dublin

Surveyor11

We have to accept that a large minority of road users (cyclists and motorists) as well as pedestrians are complete f*ckwits. No group should be singled out as they are stupid in equal proportions. Pedestrians in cycle lanes, jumping out behind buses, cars breaking red lights, using bus lanes when they're not permitted, driving in poor light / fog without lights, cyclists breaking red lights, on footpaths - the list goes on. It's a complete circular argument blaming one group.

AltAccount

This is great news, get them summonses out pronto!

hardCopy

chopper6 wrote: »

Given that they're completely unprotected they should be much more carefull....for example,i cant remember the last time i saw a cyclist using hand signals.

You're either:

A) Exagerating
Forgetful
C) Unobservant

If you spend any kind of time on Dublin's roads then you would see hand signals on a regular basis. You would also see cyclists stopping at red lights and not cycling on footpaths.

Yes, there is an obvious problem with some cyclists not obeying the rules of the road, but to suggest that all or even a majority of cyclists are a menace is complete nonsense.

chopper6

hardCopy wrote: »

You're either:

A) Exagerating
Forgetful
C) Unobservant

Am I indeed?


So this is the default answer of cyclists is it?

"You didn't see it so you must be at fault"?

Nonsense...cyclists routinely omit to use hand signals and well you know it...i'm not saying it for the sake of it as i've nearly killed a few trying to second guess thier intentions.

hardCopy wrote: »

If you spend any kind of time on Dublin's roads then you would see hand signals on a regular basis.

I do and I don't....as i've said,using hand signals is so rare as to be almost non-existant...i'm sure many motorists would agree with me.

hardCopy wrote: »

You would also see cyclists stopping at red lights and not cycling on footpaths.
.

And i also see a substantial number doing the opposite of the above....do you think i'm making this up?

seamus

chopper6 wrote: »

Nonsense...cyclists routinely omit to use hand signals and well you know it...i'm not saying it for the sake of it as i've nearly killed a few trying to second guess thier intentions.

Which means they're human. All road users routinely omit to use signals. Cyclists don't stand out in that regard.

I do and I don't....as i've said,using hand signals is so rare as to be almost non-existant...i'm sure many motorists would agree with me.

The human brain does this funny thing which is cool, interesting and irritating all at the same time.
It's a cognitive issue where you literally only see what you want to see. Motorcyclists are the ones who are most put at risk by it, as a vehicle waiting to turn from a side road will often simply "not see" them and will pull out.

The same biaise applies here. Because so many people get so incensed about cyclists for whatever reason, their brain actively ignores the cyclists who are doing things correctly - it writes them off as freak occurrences, "that doesn't count", whatever - but when you see a cyclist doing what you expect them to do, you pay attention. Over time, your accumulated memories of cyclists is that they all do exactly what you expect them to do - because you've forgotten/ignored all of the times they didn't do what you expected.

It doesn't just apply to road use, it applies to a whole host of things. Our brain is constantly searching for things which confirm our own biases. Biases tend to strengthen in an individual over time, not because they're right, but because they've been fooled by their brain into thinking that their biaise has been confirmed more than it actually has. It forgets the contradictions.

Try it out this evening. On your drive home, make a special effort to dispassionately look at the cyclists. How many are stopped at the lights? How many are indicating? How many have lights, how many don't? When you see one cyclist breaking a light, don't think, "Aha! I was right!". Just continue to objectively observe.

07Lapierre

chopper6 wrote: »

Nonsense...cyclists routinely omit to use hand signals and well you know it...i'm not saying it for the sake of it as i've nearly killed a few trying to second guess thier intentions.

No road user should try and second guess another road users intentions regardless of the mode of transport involved.

Galadriel

chopper6 wrote: »

And i also see a substantial number doing the opposite of the above....do you think i'm making this up?

As many people have said SOME cyclists do foolish things and SOME cyclists don't, it's not an all or nothing situation.

chopper6

07Lapierre wrote: »

No road user should try and second guess another road users intentions regardless of the mode of transport involved.

Well what do you do if THEY don't make thier intentions clear by not indicating?

hardCopy

chopper6 wrote: »

Am I indeed?


So this is the default answer of cyclists is it?

"You didn't see it so you must be at fault"?

Nonsense...cyclists routinely omit to use hand signals and well you know it...i'm not saying it for the sake of it as i've nearly killed a few trying to second guess thier intentions.






I do and I don't....as i've said,using hand signals is so rare as to be almost non-existant...i'm sure many motorists would agree with me.




And i also see a substantial number doing the opposite of the above....do you think i'm making this up?

Yep, I think you're completely full of it.

If you said some cyclists don't signal, I'd believe you
If you said too many cyclists don't signal, I'd agree with you
If you said the majority don't signal, I'd disagree with you and put it down to selective memory
To say that hand signals are as good as non-existant is horse manure and I think you're deliberately exagerating.

chopper6

hardCopy wrote: »

Yep, I think you're completely full of it.

If you said some cyclists don't signal, I'd believe you
If you said too many cyclists don't signal, I'd agree with you
If you said the majority don't signal, I'd disagree with you and put it down to selective memory
To say that hand signals are as good as non-existant is horse manure and I think you're deliberately exagerating.

Are you a motorist?


I think you're not...if you were you would know what i was talking about.


I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

07Lapierre

chopper6 wrote: »

Well what do you do if THEY don't make thier intentions clear by not indicating?

Depends on the situation.

if I'm a cyclist and about to cycle through a junction and there is a car in front of me (With no Indicator on) I'll wait until the car moves before deciding what action to take. If the car turns left, I'll pass on the right. If the car turns Right I'll pass on the Left etc. simple really.

07Lapierre

chopper6 wrote: »

Are you a motorist?


I think you're not...if you were you would know what i was talking about.


I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

What a load of Crap!

Surveyor11

chopper6 wrote: »

Well what do you do if THEY don't make thier intentions clear by not indicating?

I'm going to go out on a limb here - perhaps ease back, see what the guy is up to in front of you then proceed when it's safe to do so? Could take all of 5 seconds.

cherryghost

There's a minority of all kinds that are utterly stupid when it comes to the law of the road. You can't just single one of them out tbf.

hardCopy

chopper6 wrote: »

Are you a motorist?


I think you're not...if you were you would know what i was talking about.


I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

Yes, I drive 20,000+km a year for work. I also cycle but I haven't been on my bike in over a month.

Your perception of cycling has little connection to reality.

I suggest you spend less time listening to George Hook and Jeremy Clarkson and try to form your own opinions.

Surveyor11

chopper6 wrote: »

Are you a motorist?


I think you're not...if you were you would know what i was talking about.


I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

I've been doing it all wrong - cycling to work all year round when I could have used my nice car, double my travel time, use up thousands in petrol but stay nice and dry. That's it, you've convinced me - I'm driving from now on....

Skrynesaver

chopper6 wrote: »

Are you a motorist?


I think you're not...if you were you would know what i was talking about.


I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

I actually LOL'd, I do have a car, but I double the value of it when I stick my bike on the back

I honestly suspect that, having spent more than they can afford on a depreciating asset, many motorists are burning with jealousy when they see a bicycle sail past them while they shunt another 2 car lengths closer to the lights.

Driving is an exhausting and tedious chore, particularly in Dublin, cycling however can clear your head of the detritus that build there during a days work. (That said I've designed API's on the ride home).

On the original topic, I am delighted to see the guards enforce the law on road users regardless of their means of transport as I believe flouting of the law by a minority of cyclists gives a dangerous impression to the Colonel Blimp types that cyclists are not real traffic and don't have the same rights as other road users.

chopper6

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Driving is an exhausting and tedious chore, particularly in Dublin, cycling however can clear your head of the detritus that build there during a days work. (That said I've designed API's on the ride home).

You can't have been giving the road your full attention then can you?

And while i'm at it...what proficiency or otehr tests to cyclists have to t ake before hitting the streets/

Nothing.


A motorist must pass the Driver Theory test to even qualify for a Provisional Licence,he must then take lessons from a qualified driver and is not allowed to drive unacompanied whilst learning.

In order to drive by himself the motorist must have passed the driving test,the car must be in possesion of a valid NCT certificate,motor tax and insurance.


Aditionaly motorists are regularly stopped for intoxication tests and for document checks.

Anybody can jump on a bicycle,whether it's a roadworthy contraption or not,they need no license,no test and they don't pay any kind of taxes.

It is my opinion that bicycle should be licensed,taxed and certified roadworthy and cyclists should also complete a 'driving' test before being allowed to use the city's roads.

hardCopy

chopper6 wrote: »

You can't have been giving the road your full attention then can you?

And while i'm at it...what proficiency or otehr tests to cyclists have to t ake before hitting the streets/

Nothing.


A motorist must pass the Driver Theory test to even qualify for a Provisional Licence,he must then take lessons from a qualified driver and is not allowed to drive unacompanied whilst learning.

In order to drive by himself the motorist must have passed the driving test,the car must be in possesion of a valid NCT certificate,motor tax and insurance.


Aditionaly motorists are regularly stopped for intoxication tests and for document checks.

Anybody can jump on a bicycle,whether it's a roadworthy contraption or not,they need no license,no test and they don't pay any kind of taxes.

It is my opinion that bicycle should be licensed,taxed and certified roadworthy and cyclists should also complete a 'driving' test before being allowed to use the city's roads.

While some kind of training would be nice for the idiots who cycle on paths and break lights, it would just discourage too many people from taking up cycling for little benefit. Driver testing and licencing ensures that some level of competency is shown before you can take a lethal weapon out on the road.

Cyclists just don't kill people, so why bother making it more difficult to get started?

chopper6

hardCopy wrote: »

While some kind of training would be nice for the idiots who cycle on paths and break lights, it would just discourage too many people from taking up cycling for little benefit. Driver testing and licencing ensures that some level of competency is shown before you can take a lethal weapon out on the road.

Cyclists just don't kill people, so why bother making it more difficult to get started?

They can get themselves killed though...through ignorance of the rules of the road,failure to abide by traffic lights,ignorance of hand signals,not having lights etc.

This seems to be part of the problem...although cyclists take to public highways on little more than a thin metal frame they seem to think that rules of the road don't apply to them,competancy isn't necessary and they are in some way doing society a favour.


If they are going to be on public roads with other traffic they should at least have an exam to show they understand what it means to be a road user.

dubrov

From my experience most cyclists will only break red lights when it is safe to do so (turning left or 4 way green man junction).

Some do so dangerously.
In reality, dangerous cycling only puts the cyclist at risk. Even if a cyclist hits a pedestrian, it is usually the cyclist who comes off worse.

Far more drivers obey the rules than cyclists but those who don't cause far more damage than cyclists ever will.

chopper6

dubrov wrote: »

From my experience most cyclists will only break red lights when it is safe to do so .

Oh dear lord.

dubrov

chopper6 wrote: »

Oh dear lord.

You are missing my point.

Motorists/Cyclists/Pedestrians are all the same. Some are a$$holes and some are not.

Laws are much more strictly enforced on motorists because of the potential damage that results (especially inflicted on others) when they break the law.

Surveyor11

dubrov wrote: »

You are missing my point.

Motorists/Cyclists/Pedestrians are all the same. Some are a$$holes and some are not.

Laws are much more strictly enforced on motorists because of the potential damage that results (especially inflicted on others) when they break the law.

They allow cyclists (and motorists) to proceed on red when turning right in the US (or left in our case). I prefer 100% compliance at red lights, whether in a car or on my bike

chopper6

dubrov wrote: »

You are missing my point.

Motorists/Cyclists/Pedestrians are all the same. Some are a$$holes and some are not.

Laws are much more strictly enforced on motorists because of the potential damage that results (especially inflicted on others) when they break the law.

I am not missing the point.

The point is that it is never safe to run a red light...the light is red to signify danger.

A cyclist may not kill somebody else but he himself can be injured or killed by a vehicle that *is* obeying the lights.

This idea that the rules of the road don't or shouldnt apply to cyclists is what causes accidents.


What about bycicle road-worthyness?


You keep refering to motorists as being the cause of fatal accidents but motor vehicles are (largely) tested by the NCt for safety.

How manyy cyclists spinning around at high speeds have had thier brakes,wheels,chains etc properly tested to ensure they will function properly in an emergency?

Many cyclists are traversing the city on cheap boneshakers to save themselves a few bob and are a danger to themselves and others.

07Lapierre

chopper6 wrote: »

I am not missing the point.

The point is that it is never safe to run a red light...the light is red to signify danger.

A cyclist may not kill somebody else but he himself can be injured or killed by a vehicle that *is* obeying the lights.

This idea that the rules of the road don't or shouldnt apply to cyclists is what causes accidents.


What about bycicle road-worthyness?


You keep refering to motorists as being the cause of fatal accidents but motor vehicles are (largely) tested by the NCt for safety.

How manyy cyclists spinning around at high speeds have had thier brakes,wheels,chains etc properly tested to ensure they will function properly in an emergency?

Many cyclists are traversing the city on cheap boneshakers to save themselves a few bob and are a danger to themselves and others.

When was the last time a road traffic accident was the direct result of a defective vehicle? 99% of road traffic accidents are caused by human error ( speeding, alcohol etc.)

chopper6

07Lapierre wrote: »

When was the last time a road traffic accident was the direct result of a defective vehicle?

Well i know somebody whose brakes failed on the way to Dundrum and they ended up swiping another car. That was this year.

07Lapierre wrote: »

99% of road traffic accidents are caused by human error ( speeding, alcohol etc.)

That also includes "human error" such as going the wrong way up a one-way street,failing to signal,running red lights,cycling on pavements,cycling out in front of moving vehicles,cycling between vehicles and stationary objects etc etc.


I don't know why you keep trying to shift the blame from cyclists to motorists,as i've said there's no certificate of competancy required of people on bicycles.

Kiltennel

chopper6 wrote: »

It is my opinion that bicycle should be licensed,taxed and certified roadworthy and cyclists should also complete a 'driving' test before being allowed to use the city's roads.

On how earth do you plan to enforce that when bikes can be picked up for next to nothing and are used by just about all ages at some point? Are you going to ban kids from cycling?

chopper6 wrote: »

I don't know why you keep trying to shift the blame from cyclists to motorists,as i've said there's no certificate of competancy required of people on bicycles.

Because it would be next to impossible to enforce.

The solution that is much easier to enforce is to charge cyclists with offences comparable to that of a car / motorbike user. If a cyclist flies through a green light for pedestrian they need to be charged with reckless endangerment. If they pass through red lights they need to be charged with breaking a red light. Do it en mass and ensure they now. I say this as a cyclist who is pissed off with cyclists endangering both themselves and me through their self-centred behaviour.

Wishbone Ash

chopper6 wrote: »

I think a lot of the antipathy directed against car-owners by cyclists is down to jealousy yet they choose to spin around on bicycles in all sorts of weathers whereas motorists remain warm and dry.

You're probably not intending to be funny but that is hilarious!

Most of us are car owners and subsidise you by using our bikes while our taxed cars remain at home. Many motorists are wasting their lives stuck in their cars getting frustrated with traffic, getting fat and unfit, burning fuel and incurring parking charges etc.. It is they who are jealous of us out their making progress in traffic, using bus lanes, remaining fit, saving money on fuel with no parking charges.

And as regards all that crap you are spouting about the "qualifications" required to drive - in my experience most motorists have only passed a test in one category usually B but seem to consider themselves experts. I have passed a test in many categories and hold a full clean driving licence in all 14 categories (A, A1, B, BE, C1, C1E, C, CE, D1, D1E, D, DE, M, & W).

Incidentally,on a 70km spin tonight (in Dublin City, suburbs and county) I saw one cyclist breaking a red light (at the junction of O'Connell Street and Parnell Street) yet I encountered at least a dozen motorists breaking red lights.

07Lapierre

chopper6 wrote: »

Well i know somebody whose brakes failed on the way to Dundrum and they ended up swiping another car. That was this year.







That also includes "human error" such as going the wrong way up a one-way street,failing to signal,running red lights,cycling on pavements,cycling out in front of moving vehicles,cycling between vehicles and stationary objects etc etc.


I don't know why you keep trying to shift the blame from cyclists to motorists,as i've said there's no certificate of competancy required of people on bicycles.

I'm not trying to shift the blame! I'm simply stating that 99% of accidents are caused by human error. The " vehicle" can be a bicycle , motorbike, car etc.