Got stoped by a Garda (MOD NOTE: post #275)

useurname

I think its fair of the guard, not only is he simply advising the cyclist of the dangers he poses for being on the wrong path, hindering higher capacity vehicles such as the bus in there designated lanes.
Cycling these days has taken a whole new level, whereby the joy or necessary use of cycling as a mode of transport from a to z, was complimented by the state in the provision of cycling lanes.
From what I see the current issues of the lane are that they are not fit for purpose but those complaining are utilising these lanes for a different purpose from there original design and provision - speed cycling.
Bikes have gotten lighter cyclists compete on line now for traversing a route at max speed competing against other cyclists, the bikes are designed for high speed, the terrains these cycle lanes were built for was not for this purpose.
If cyclists want to speed cycle plan a safe route whereby the road network and traffic is both safe for all users at the speeds they wish to travel.
Cycling too fast hinders pedestrians, and also vehicular traffic, there should be speed restrictions of 10 or 15km an hr put on cycle lanes to compliment there design and function and force competitive cycling to other routes, or create cycle parks for training or if its just for health reasons go to the gym.....fair play to the guard he should stop more cyclists who weave in and of cars, just put there hand out and turn without caring about hind traffic, speed at levels that the bike is unstable on the road, jump traffic lights and other rules of the road, I think a book should be developed by the state specifically for cyclists outlining how the rules of the road apply to them and in particular extract from the main rules of the road the rules that should be particular interest to them

gman2k

I think the OP should make a complaint to GSOC or local Super about this incident.
The cyclist has a right to use the road/ buslane as outlined in law. To be held up and lectured by a member of AGS when this member is ignorant of the law is simply not acceptable.
If AGS stop you, and you know you are not in the wrong, just say to them - "Am I free to go?" If they say no, ask them "Are you detaining me?" repeat ad nauseum and offer no other information except your name, address if requested to do do.
Do not offer to produce identification if requested, especially a drivers licence.
It may be no harm for regular cyclists to have a printout of the relevant legislation in their wallet/ bag etc outlining the removal of requirement to use the cycle lane.

LennoxR

useurname wrote: »

I think its fair of the guard, not only is he simply advising the cyclist of the dangers he poses for being on the wrong path, hindering higher capacity vehicles such as the bus in there designated lanes.
Cycling these days has taken a whole new level, whereby the joy or necessary use of cycling as a mode of transport from a to z, was complimented by the state in the provision of cycling lanes.
From what I see the current issues of the lane are that they are not fit for purpose but those complaining are utilising these lanes for a different purpose from there original design and provision - speed cycling.
Bikes have gotten lighter cyclists compete on line now for traversing a route at max speed competing against other cyclists, the bikes are designed for high speed, the terrains these cycle lanes were built for was not for this purpose.
If cyclists want to speed cycle plan a safe route whereby the road network and traffic is both safe for all users at the speeds they wish to travel.
Cycling too fast hinders pedestrians, and also vehicular traffic, there should be speed restrictions of 10 or 15km an hr put on cycle lanes to compliment there design and function and force competitive cycling to other routes, or create cycle parks for training or if its just for health reasons go to the gym.....fair play to the guard he should stop more cyclists who weave in and of cars, just put there hand out and turn without caring about hind traffic, speed at levels that the bike is unstable on the road, jump traffic lights and other rules of the road, I think a book should be developed by the state specifically for cyclists outlining how the rules of the road apply to them and in particular extract from the main rules of the road the rules that should be particular interest to them

Wow. Do realise that most people jog at about 12 km per hour? Going at normal speed on a bike is about 20-25 kmph. The existing cycle lanes are not suitable for any speed in many cases.

Beasty

Personally I would make every effort not to wind up any Garda that stopped me. As someone has already pointed out they are doing their job, even if not actually understanding the laws they are trying to enforce. Attempting to be "smart" is, in my view, likely to be counterproductive. I think the OP got the balance just about right in tis case

gman2k

useurname wrote: »

I think its fair of the guard, not only is he simply advising the cyclist of the dangers he poses for being on the wrong path, hindering higher capacity vehicles such as the bus in there designated lanes.
Cycling these days has taken a whole new level, whereby the joy or necessary use of cycling as a mode of transport from a to z, was complimented by the state in the provision of cycling lanes.
From what I see the current issues of the lane are that they are not fit for purpose but those complaining are utilising these lanes for a different purpose from there original design and provision - speed cycling.
Bikes have gotten lighter cyclists compete on line now for traversing a route at max speed competing against other cyclists, the bikes are designed for high speed, the terrains these cycle lanes were built for was not for this purpose.
If cyclists want to speed cycle plan a safe route whereby the road network and traffic is both safe for all users at the speeds they wish to travel.
Cycling too fast hinders pedestrians, and also vehicular traffic, there should be speed restrictions of 10 or 15km an hr put on cycle lanes to compliment there design and function and force competitive cycling to other routes, or create cycle parks for training or if its just for health reasons go to the gym.....fair play to the guard he should stop more cyclists who weave in and of cars, just put there hand out and turn without caring about hind traffic, speed at levels that the bike is unstable on the road, jump traffic lights and other rules of the road, I think a book should be developed by the state specifically for cyclists outlining how the rules of the road apply to them and in particular extract from the main rules of the road the rules that should be particular interest to them

There is so much wrong with your post I don't have all day to go through it but I'll just concentrate on the first Para:
I think its fair of the guard - No it's not. And he has no right to hinder a person going about their lawful business when in compliance with the law.
he simply advising the cyclist of the dangers he poses for being on the wrong path - He poses no danger, and is not using the wrong path, he is legally allowed to use the bus lane/ road.
hindering higher capacity vehicles such as the bus in there designated lanes. - No bus has ever been hindered, and the cylclist is an equal member of the traffic and is legally allowed to be there, and to cycle at any speed within the posted speed limit.

No Pants

useurname wrote: »

I think a book should be developed by the state specifically for cyclists outlining how the rules of the road apply to them and in particular extract from the main rules of the road the rules that should be particular interest to them

This book already exists. It's called the Rules of The Road and from reading the 13+ pages of this thread (on a mobile phone), it's already been established that the OP has not breached any rules.

Wishbone Ash

gman2k wrote: »

I think the OP should make a complaint to GSOC or local Super about this incident.
The cyclist has a right to use the road/ buslane as outlined in law. To be held up and lectured by a member of AGS when this member is ignorant of the law is simply not acceptable.
If AGS stop you, and you know you are not in the wrong, just say to them - "Am I free to go?" If they say no, ask them "Are you detaining me?" repeat ad nauseum and offer no other information except your name, address if requested to do do.
Do not offer to produce identification if requested, especially a drivers licence.
It may be no harm for regular cyclists to have a printout of the relevant legislation in their wallet/ bag etc outlining the removal of requirement to use the cycle lane.

I was pulled over in Lusk 2 years ago by a Garda Sergeant in an unmarked Mondeo with flashing lights and sirens. He pulled in at a 45 degree angle in front of me as if I'd just robbed a bank. He asked why I wasn't using the cycle lane. I gave three reasons to which he replied that he wasn't interested in my opinions. He asked for photographic ID and seemed annoyed when I responded that I wasn't required to have it. He asked if I had a driving licence. I responded that I did but did not have it with me. He said I was lucky as otherwise I'd be getting points on it.

I made a formal written complaint about his ineptitude to his Superintendent but just got a curt PFO letter supporting the actions of the Sergeant.

coolbeans

I wonder if there are problems with recording such incidents. Anyone know? Could à cop object or take it from you even if you're legally in the right?

godtabh

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was pulled over in Lusk 2 years ago by a Garda Sergeant in an unmarked Mondeo with flashing lights and sirens. He pulled in at a 45 degree angle in front of me as if I'd just robbed a bank. He asked why I wasn't using the cycle lane. I gave three reasons to which he replied that he wasn't interested in my opinions. He asked for photographic ID and seemed annoyed when I responded that I wasn't required to have it. He asked if I had a driving licence. I responded that I did but did not have it with me. He said I was lucky as otherwise I'd be getting points on it.

I made a formal written complaint about his ineptitude to his Superintendent but just got a curt PFO letter supporting the actions of the Sergeant.

What were you have meant to have done? Simply not using the cycle lane?

Wishbone Ash

coolbeans wrote: »

I wonder if there are problems with recording such incidents. Anyone know?

Do you mean filming them or the recording of them by the Gardai on PULSE?

pablo128

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was pulled over in Lusk 2 years ago by a Garda Sergeant in an unmarked Mondeo with flashing lights and sirens. He pulled in at a 45 degree angle in front of me as if I'd just robbed a bank. He asked why I wasn't using the cycle lane. I gave three reasons to which he replied that he wasn't interested in my opinions. He asked for photographic ID and seemed annoyed when I responded that I wasn't required to have it. He asked if I had a driving licence. I responded that I did but did not have it with me. He said I was lucky as otherwise I'd be getting points on it.

I made a formal written complaint about his ineptitude to his Superintendent but just got a curt PFO letter supporting the actions of the Sergeant.

2 years ago you would have been required by the laws of the land to use the cycle lane.

godtabh

Beasty wrote: »

Personally I would make every effort not to wind up any Garda that stopped me. As someone has already pointed out they are doing their job, even if not actually understanding the laws they are trying to enforce. Attempting to be "smart" is, in my view, likely to be counterproductive. I think the OP got the balance just about right in tis case

Ask I said, and I'll say it again, the lad who pulled me over was grand. He had a conversation and that was that. The issue I had is why he felt he needed to pull me over when I was doing nothing wrong and was acting as a cyclist should.

He didn't target me. It could have been any one

gman2k

coolbeans wrote: »

I wonder if there are problems with recording such incidents. Anyone know? Could à cop object or take it from you even if you're legally in the right?

You are perfectly and legally entitled to record anything in a public place.
If AGS took it from you and deleted it they would be in serious trouble, as per previous cases.
The sooner more people use helmet cams (and dash cams for cars) the better.

Wishbone Ash

godtabh wrote: »

What were you have meant to have done? Simply not using the cycle lane?

Yes - it was before the law changed. However, it was my belief that the cycle lane had no legal standing as the signage seemed incorrect. It was also off road and thronged with pedestrians, runners, dog walkers, buggies etc (beautiful sunny evening). It would also have been inconvenient for me to use it as I was turning right up ahead.

I had no problem with being stopped but the overly dramatic way it was done and the obnoxious attitude of the Sergeant, who never made eye contact and seemed to want to play to the gallery of pedestrians walking by and staring. Despite asking questions, he then said he wasn't interested in my answers. But my main complaint was his belief that penalty points could be applied to my licence and the only reason they weren't was that I didn't have it with me.

Wishbone Ash

pablo128 wrote: »

2 years ago you would have been required by the laws of the land to use the cycle lane.

I am aware of that. See above post.

Ole Rodrigo

They are just doing their job, and in the majority of cases are respectful when doing so. A few minutes delay is hardly any trouble.

I don't agree with helmet cams. The vast majority of cyclists get by without the need for one, which speaks for itself. Its not Russia. Besides, many of the youtube commuter-cam uploads have ultimately been guilty of bad cycling.

coolbeans

Well, I'm getting one. Not for cops who don't know their jobs but for everything. More surveillance means more accountability and god knows that's needed in Ireland

Chips Lovell

The problem with holding a subjective interpretation of what constitutes good road behaviour is that the only person who knows what you consider acceptable is you.

It's all very well saying "I realise what the law is, but it's only common sense/common courtesy/safer if cyclists do x, y or z..." but the cyclist you're complaining about has no idea what standard of behaviour you are holding them to and thus can hardly be expected to comply with it.

That's even before you consider that your views may not concur with the cyclist's view of what is common sense/common courtesy/safe, nor with the views of other road users.

Red Nissan

gman2k wrote: »

The sooner more people use helmet cams (and dash cams for cars) the better.

Yup, soon as they see that red LED they go all smillie and polite ~ even gets one passed through road checks.

I am rather amazed at the reported stories here though, law to ride on cycle lanes and getting points on motor license ~ madness.

coolbeans

Red Nissan wrote: »

I am rather amazed at the reported stories here though, law to ride on cycle lanes and getting points on motor license ~ madness.

I'm not one for barking at people doing a job but when some idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about stops me on a Monday morning based on nothing but a contempt for cyclists I get all sanctimonious and say duck it, I wouldn't have to put up with this if I had a cam. Most cops are fine but I don't take things lying down when I'm not in the wrong.

ThisRegard

Beasty wrote: »

Personally I would make every effort not to wind up any Garda that stopped me

Reminds me of the time I was cycling home from either a girlfriend at the time or work one night back in the mid 90s. Was doing a fair oul speed and got followed and pulled in by the Gardai. I had a fairly decent MTB at the time and they wanted to know where I was coming from. Told them and they wanted to know where I got the bike from. Told them from my parents and no word of a lie, he then wanted to know where they got it from. I was itching to say Santy but thought better of it.

The encounter poisoned me against them for a while too, not so much for stopping me but for questioning my parents integrity !

seamus

Filming or making a recording in a public place is perfectly legal, but there can be questions raised about its admissibility as evidence.

If there is an expectation of privacy, as there may well be in a conversation between two people, then you can make the recording but you can't publish it and it may not be admissible as evidence.

However if you point out the fact that you are recording, the other person cannot demand that you stop, all they can do is walk away.

(The above only applies to filming in public)

coolbeans

Basically I'm such instances I don't wanna record anything. I just want a quiet life. I think having an obvious cam makes that more likely.

amen

If there is an expectation of privacy, as there may well be in a conversation between two people, then you can make the recording but you can't publish it and it may not be admissible as evidence.

a public servant going about his job in a public place has an expectation of privacy ?

Tenzor07

Just in case people don't realise, you are under no obligation to carry your drivers licence when on a bicycle. If you are asked to produce it you can simply say either you don't have it with you or I'm on a bicycle, I don't have a car".
I mean, are they going to ask a 15 year old the same thing?

If they threaten to take your bicycle, just ask how you are going to get home as you have no other means of doing so..(walking in road spd shoes is not fun!)

Main thing is you are under no obligation to speak to the Gardai when stopped, other than yes or no.

And don't get smart or thick with them and start quoting legislation as it will just wind them up, just stay calm.

godtabh

Out of interest is there any helmet and/or dash cams that can record for 90mins in low light?

Tenzor07

seamus wrote: »

Filming or making a recording in a public place is perfectly legal, but there can be questions raised about its admissibility as evidence.

If there is an expectation of privacy, as there may well be in a conversation between two people, then you can make the recording but you can't publish it and it may not be admissible as evidence.

However if you point out the fact that you are recording, the other person cannot demand that you stop, all they can do is walk away.

(The above only applies to filming in public)

Like this famous incident!

coolbeans

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Like this famous incident!

God almighty what a pair of bellends. I'm not getting a camera to act like a tosser like either of those two.

Tenzor07

coolbeans wrote: »

God almighty what a pair of bellends. I'm not getting a camera to act like a tosser like either of those two.

Just an example of how the cyclist stood up for himself rather than just accept it, and managed to talk himself out of a ticket..

Though, I would not recommend it, it does show how the cop asked for a passport/Drivers licence, and was unable to quote the law..

pablo128

coolbeans wrote: »

God almighty what a pair of bellends. I'm not getting a camera to act like a tosser like either of those two.

Say what you like but if a cop wants to arrest you, or issue a ticket, he must quote the law you are breaking. He must do that before you are required to give him your name and address. And I say that as a motorist, not a cyclist.

coolbeans

pablo128 wrote: »

Say what you like but if a cop wants to arrest you, or issue a ticket, he must quote the law you are breaking. He must do that before you are required to give him your name and address. And I say that as a motorist, not a cyclist.

The guy on the bike is right and all but he's still a bit of a tool imo. He could've handled it a lot better especially as he's a "student of the law" as he so condescendingly points out.

pablo128

coolbeans wrote: »

The guy on the bike is right and all but he's still a bit of a tool imo. He could've handled it a lot better especially as he's a "student of the law" as he so condescendingly points out.

If he had kept his moth shut and played ball with the cop, he'd have ended up with a ticket..... for what exactly? Even the cop didn't know.

sdanseo

Sorry I had to leave the discussion last night just as I was getting into it. To give a little insight, the reason I'm in this forum asking these questions is because I'm in the middle of a thesis the title of which is effectively the relationship between road infrastructure & road safety. As a result I'm a little bit interested

I am NOT here to shít on cyclists and resent the implications of which there have been several.

morana wrote: »

no its not as you have been told here many times.

any vehicle turning left has to make sure there is nothing on their inside when turning, although I agree that for a cyclist its better to be out of that zone

Sorry, that doesn't let you off the hook completely. As a road user you are expected to exercise common sense. Don't give me that "freeman of the land" type nonsense about entitlement - use some cop on instead and that'll help keep everyone safe.

doozerie wrote: »

This is a topic that has been covered many times in the past on here, and elsewhere. Fundamentally, badly designed cycle lanes, as many of them are in this country, increase risk for the cyclists by, for one thing, taking them out of the view of motorists but merging them back in with motorists at every junction in a manner that makes junctions extremely dangerous to negotiate. As a cyclist, just like as a motorist, it is almost always safer to remain on the road, visible, and part of traffic.

I agree that a lot of our cycle lanes are in piss poor condition. That's something that's a bit like the rest of our road infrastructure and needs improvement, no doubt.

My curiosity was whether it is not still, overall, better and safer for all for cyclists to use them than to risk being damaged by or inordinately delaying vehicular traffic, something which I think is a fair question.

Just because cyclists are allowed to use the road doesn't mean they should do so with the associated annoyance to motor vehicle drivers.

Just because motor vehicles are allowed to use the road doesn't mean they should always do so in such a way that while legal it causes undue annoyance to cyclists.

doozerie wrote: »

A common misconception. Cyclists don't hold up traffic, cyclists *are* traffic.

One piece of traffic can hold up another by being extremely slow. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be using the road, but why should a whole queue of people be delayed just so one person can be satisfied?

doozerie wrote: »

Rational people wouldn't typically expect the likes of tractors, bin lorries, etc., to drive on a footpath simply because they often travel slower than trailing motorists would like, but it's a "solution" widely advised for cyclists, seemingly based on some sort of misguided assumption that cyclists have less right (than motorists) to be on the roads in the first place. It's a bit like joggers expecting pedestrians to step off the footpath and out of their way at the first sight of a jogger behind them.

It's an age old problem really. There isn't enough space on the road for all users combined.

What you're saying is that all road users should share the road equally no matter how much they interfere with the others' ability to satisfactorily use it too. In that case we should remove all No-Right-Turn signs from residential estates and drivers who want to make very difficult right turns can delay everyone else. Sorted by your logic.

In relation to bin trucks and tractors - personally I think the answer is to restrict use of these at certain time on certain roads, not unlike the 5-axle ban in Dublin City Centre.

I lived in Belgium for a time as a kid and bin collections could only be done before 7am. No traffic problems in narrow estates at rush hour there!

coolbeans

pablo128 wrote: »

If he had kept his moth shut and played ball with the cop, he'd have ended up with a ticket..... for what exactly? Even the cop didn't know.

I never said he should keep his mouth shut and play ball. Stand up for yourself but do it with tact especially if you're gonna post it to YouTube. It's a battle for hearts and minds after all and the majority drive and are therefore biased to varying degrees against cyclists.

godtabh

sdeire wrote: »

Sorry I had to leave the discussion last night just as I was getting into it. To give a little insight, the reason I'm in this forum asking these questions is because I'm in the middle of a thesis the title of which is effectively the relationship between road infrastructure & road safety. My degree is in transport

I call ballox on this. If your degree was in "transport" you would be fairly clued into they phsycology of how road users use roads. Roads users are not just motorists by the way.

For example look at the UKs Manual For Streets. Look at the chapter on road layouts and particularly home zones. The same principles apply to roads and cyclists.

In home zones the surface is shares. Becuae of that motorists expect their to be pedestrians about.

Look at the many many academic studies on the subject.

Don't bull**** a bull****ter. With 10 years experience in roads, transportation design I have the experience to back this up.

Tenzor07

coolbeans wrote: »

I never said he should keep his mouth shut and play ball. Stand up for yourself but do it with tact especially if you're gonna post it to YouTube. It's a battle for hearts and minds after all and the majority drive and are therefore biased to varying degrees against cyclists.

Just to add.. If you are stopped by a traffic cop be it in your car/van or also even bicycle, if they ask "So do you know why I am stopping you?"
Just say, "no sorry, I don't"... let them tell you.

browsing

[QUOTE=Wishbone Ash;89147516 But my main complaint was his belief that penalty points could be applied to my licence and the only reason they weren't was that I didn't have it with me.[/QUOTE]

That sounds dodgey to me too. I am in no expert in the area but I thought that each a ofence that you can get penalty points for is strictly defined and I presume he was talking rubbish. But... I read a story a few years ago in the Times or Independent about a cyclist that ran a read light and was subsequently knocked down. He was taken to court where he was given a driving ban!

Now, he hadn't actually got a driving licence so I don't think it really affected him but was more of a case where your driving licence can be affected by your actions on a bicycle. I think the judge wanted to send a message to cyclists in general.



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

Unknown Soldier

People should never act smart with the police. In the long run it does no good. Do stand up for yourself though. There is a world of difference between standing up for yourself and being a smartass.

In general people should try and not act the dick. Be that in general life, in a car or on a bike.

godtabh wrote: »

Out of interest is there any helmet and/or dash cams that can record for 90mins in low light?

I have a Mobius that will do 90 mins and there is a setting on it that makes it pretty good at low light and I have another action cam that is terrible at low light BUT if you adjust the brightness on your chosen media player you would be surprised at what you can see, even though the original image is pretty much black.

An example I quickly threw together.
http://omg.wthax.org/dark.jpg
http://omg.wthax.org/brightened.jpg

Ninap

It's almost impossible to use a cycle lane in Dublin that you aren't familiar with. It's a magical mystery tour with unknown and unpredictable stops, yields and turns. On the road, you know that the expectation is that the layout and surface will be relatively safe for travel up to 50kph. You can have no such expectation of most Dublin bike lanes. The basic expectations of a bike lane should be: safe, predictable and with no extra stops than for road traffic.

seamus

amen wrote: »

a public servant going about his job in a public place has an expectation of privacy ?

It's situation dependent.

Broadly speaking, no. If someone is doing something in public, then there's very little stopping you from filming or recording it and publishing that.

But some things are a matter of interpretation and "expectation of privacy" is a vague thing. For example, if you and your mate are having a chat on the bus, then you have no expectation of privacy and someone can legally record you and publish it. But if you duck down a laneway to have a quick chat where no-one can hear, then you have a reasonable expectation that what you say is a private conversation, and publication of that conversation without consent may be a breach of that.

So in terms of this thread, a Garda stopping you for a chat on Grafton St may not be the same thing as stopping you for a chat on the side of the N11, as there are clearly going to be less people around and therefore possibly an expectation of privacy on both your parts.

However, like I say that's something which would have to be established in court. In theory, by default a recording made in public is publishable unless deemed otherwise by a court. So it's completely not illegal to record/film the Garda nor publish that film (assuming that you're filming a single incident and not engaged in profiling or surveillance).

There was a recent case in the UK of Naomi Campbell being papped as she left a drug treatment centre. Although the pictures were taken in public, of someone doing something publically, the court still found that an individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their comings and going in relation to such matters and fined the relevant people for the photos.

This is in contrast to the US where filming a police officer can in some states land you in jail for a specific crime, but more generally often results in arrest for some nonsense reason and your camera "accidentally" gets damaged.
http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police

The Gardai and UK police by contrast don't seem to give a sh1t about the videos that end up on youtube.

morana

sdeire wrote: »

Sorry, that doesn't let you off the hook completely. As a road user you are expected to exercise common sense. Don't give me that "freeman of the land" type nonsense about entitlement - use some cop on instead and that'll help keep everyone safe.

great!

doozerie

sdeire wrote:

It's an age old problem really. There isn't enough space on the road for all users combined.

Nonsense.

...but I’ll accept your view for the greater good (I'm fookin' sound, me) and I’ll accept that something must be done. So on the basis of first come first served I guess that the roads will have to go to the vehicles that used them first, so the horse and cart get exclusive use of the roads then - I’ll just dust off my MTB and commute off-road, I’m not sure what you’ll do but it was your call so I’m sure you’ll be happy with the situation however much it inconveniences you.

And remember, we are here for hugs should you need one, we are a very sharing and caring lot us cyclists. *hug*

Wishbone Ash

doozerie wrote: »

... the roads will have to go to the vehicles that used them first, so the horse and cart get exclusive use of the roads then

Oxen!

doozerie

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Oxen!

Pfft, horses are more expensive to buy and maintain than oxen, therefore horses have greater rights. :pac:

sdanseo

godtabh wrote: »

I call ballox on this. If your degree was in "transport" you would be fairly clued into they phsycology of how road users use roads. Roads users are not just motorists by the way.

For example look at the UKs Manual For Streets. Look at the chapter on road layouts and particularly home zones. The same principles apply to roads and cyclists.

In home zones the surface is shares. Becuae of that motorists expect their to be pedestrians about.

Look at the many many academic studies on the subject.

Don't bull**** a bull****ter. With 10 years experience in roads, transportation design I have the experience to back this up.

It's very much not bull****. Check my posts for recent contributions to the DIT forum about final year exams.

It's a BSc Transport Operations and Technology in Bolton Street, and I'll provide credentials to a forum administrator if asked to do so.

Your attitude stinks, to be honest.

doozerie

sdeire wrote: »

Your attitude stinks, to be honest.

As will your thesis if it is based on the prejudice and ill-informed opinion you have conveyed in your posts in this thread.

Alias G

sdeire wrote: »

It's very much not bull****. Check my posts for recent contributions to the DIT forum about final year exams.

It's a BSc Transport Operations and Technology in Bolton Street, and I'll provide credentials to a forum administrator if asked to do so.

Your attitude stinks, to be honest.

In that case, it would appear that you took your degree 30 or 40 years too late. A motoring centric philosophy in terms of infrastructure peaked a long time ago and has proven to be redundant. I have a feeling you may have wasted the last four years of your life.

degsie

/* handbags at the ready */

sdanseo

Alright im done with this. I asked for an insight as to why cyclists don't use cycle lanes, and to be fair I got my answer - because in general they're substandard.

Any additional comments I made were measured and not in any way generally unfair or "motoring centric" - all road users have to share the road and here's me trying to constructively research how that might be done and engage in debate only to have my character dismantled by a collective who seem to think that because I spend more time in control of four wheels than two that I'm automatically anti-bicycle.

I'll take educational advice from someone who didn't presume I was lying up until an hour ago if it's all the same to you. Good luck.

sdanseo

doozerie wrote: »

As will your thesis if it is based on the prejudice and ill-informed opinion you have conveyed in your posts in this thread.

I'm was here to convey opinion and to be informed, precisely for that reason. But you guys don't like to play nice so I'm done.

I've never been hesitant about posting a comment that was in any way critical of another on boards - cycling was and remains the exception to that rule. Fair enough if a troll comes along but when someone has the best of intentions they should be told why they're wrong not jumped on for it.