Those damn cyclists again!

Jawgap

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Need to be?........seriously?

Aside from the emergency services? When're do motorists need to be without extra hold ups.......maybe they should just leave earlier.

floggg

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.


I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

Does it not seem stupid that anybody can just walk, jog or run along the side of the road and across it, without knowledge of the signs, car stopping distances or any of that.

Now I'm not lumping in all pedestrians in the same group and there are pedestrians who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road?




There is no cycling licence for the same reason there is no pedestrian licence. They added burden and regulation doesn't justify the reduction in risk that would result. Both are capable of causing accidents, but the biggest deterrence or preventative measure for each group is the likelihood of being killed if they use the road in a reckless manner.

99% of cyclists are acutely aware that they will be flattened like a pancake if they try and take on a car. So they don't.

Even if they do the biggest risk they pose is to themselves.

Cars on they other hand are another matter. While you can't do much damage cycling into somebody or something, you cando a **** load of damage in a car.

They pose a huge risk to not only the drivers but passengers, other road users, pedestrians and propery.

Cars are a lethal weapon so we regulate their use. Bikes aren't for the most part - very few third party deaths result from bad cycling. In fact I don't recall ever hearing of one (I'm sure there has been but I haven't heard of it).

I'd almost imagine there is as many third party deaths caused by pedestrians to be honest (no stats, just a speculative guess).

Shenshen

kylith wrote: »

While I disagree with bike licences, due to the fact that it would leave many teenagers without transport to and from friends' houses and school/sports events and wouldn't help our childhood obesity problems, I do think that cycling roadcraft and bike maintenance should be taught in schools.

Why would it, though?
Make it part of primary school education - the siituation in Europe was mentioned. In Germany (the only country I can speak for , so it'll have to do), you have lessons when you're 6 or 7 years old. Before you complete the written and practical cycling test, you are only allowed to cycle on the pavements. You are not allowed to cycle on the road unless you have the license, or have reached 15 year of age.

newport2

Tombo2001 wrote: »

they are legally entitled to do it. Its not dangerous. Its just that you dont like it.

I really dont see why you regard it as any more of an inconvenience than traffic lights or the fact that you cant use a bus lane during the day......

As I said earlier, motorists will tolerate all sorts of delays from other motorists, but if a cyclist slows them down they go berserk.

Anyone using the road (on 2 wheels or 4) who is causing a build-up of traffic behind should make every effort to let the other traffic past. Likewise, motorists should not attempt to pass unless it's safe to do so.

It's not about legal entitlement, it's about not being an inconsiderate a-hole.

We all share the road, and I say this as a regular cyclist who drives occasionally.

Sir Arthur Daley

ThisRegard wrote: »

A guy has a fall at around 70kph, gets back on his bike, rides uphill for another 10k or so. All with a broken shin. Real ******s are those Tour De France guys.

You would not feel any pain either if you were dosed with juice.

ThisRegard

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

You would not feel any pain either if you were dosed with juice.

It's simply because manly men cycle.

kylith

Shenshen wrote: »

Why would it, though?
Make it part of primary school education - the siituation in Europe was mentioned. In Germany (the only country I can speak for , so it'll have to do), you have lessons when you're 6 or 7 years old. Before you complete the written and practical cycling test, you are only allowed to cycle on the pavements. You are not allowed to cycle on the road unless you have the license, or have reached 15 year of age.

Because if cyclists have to be licenced then no licence means no cycling, which means no spinning round to your friend's house, or to football practise on Saturday.

If you must stay on the footpath until you're 15 (and we know how much pedestrians love bikes on the footpath, not to mention the fact that on-pavement cycle paths may as well not be there for all the notice that pedestrians take of them) what does a 14 year old who lives in an area with no footpaths do?

blackwhite

secondrowgal wrote: »

I agree with you b&w, and I am both a cyclist (to work!) and a motorist. But do you mind if I make one observation on the bolded bit above? Of course cyclists should be checking constantly what's going on around them, but from experience, it is really hard and dangerous to be looking behind you to check what's going on when you're cycling. It's not like being in a car where you are in a stable position on 4 wheels with mirrors. Just for example, I have to make a right turn pretty soon after some traffic lights at a 4-way junction when I am going home. Between starting from a standing start, the cars all trying to pass me, signalling to turn right and actually getting across the road, I don't have a lot of time to look behind me and not fall off . I often just get off the bike and wait to cross to be honest.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that it is not always easy for a cyclist to check behind them as they don't have rearview mirrors and it's not always safe to look around if you are moving reasonably quickly. That's just something for motorists to be aware of I suppose.

Whilst I agree with what you've posted, I was referring to cyclists not checking changing lanes.

If you aren't capable of, or willing to, check over your shoulder when changing lanes, then you probably shouldn't be cycling on the road. (same applies for motorists as well - and plenty of motorists are as bad for just wildly swinging between lanes).

stefanovich

I agree. There are definitely some cyclists who feel the need to make a point by cycling two abreast rather than single file and blocking up an entire lane of traffic rather than using the hard shoulder.

magicbastarder

you're not allowed use the hard shoulder. it's for stopping in, not travelling in.

floggg

SeanW wrote: »

Which is countered possibly to the point of irrelevance by the Bike To Work scheme subsidy.

Given that such incentives exist, could it be that the government have copped on to the idea that they more people that cycle the better for everybody - less traffic, less congestion, less pollution, less road maintenance, less healthcare costs etc.

stefanovich

It's a bicycle, not a car for Christ's sake. If I was on a dual carriageway on a bicycle I would use the hard shoulder. You'd have to be nuts to do otherwise.

Jawgap

stefanovich wrote: »

I agree. There are definitely some cyclists who feel the need to make a point by cycling two abreast rather than single file and blocking up an entire lane of traffic rather than using the hard shoulder.

Or maybe it's because cycling is a social activity.

Plus aren't hard shoulders only for emergencies? (They also tend to be surface quite poorly)

magicbastarder

stefanovich wrote: »

It's a bicycle, not a car for Christ's sake. If I was on a dual carriageway on a bicycle I would use the hard shoulder. You'd have to be nuts to do otherwise.

are we talking about makey uppy situations now?

Jawgap

stefanovich wrote: »

It's a bicycle, not a car for Christ's sake. If I was on a dual carriageway on a bicycle I would use the hard shoulder. You'd have to be nuts to do otherwise.

I would too.......except where the surface is rubbish. In general though I plan my routes to avoid dual carriageways (when I'm on the bike)

Shenshen

kylith wrote: »

Because if cyclists have to be licenced then no licence means no cycling, which means no spinning round to your friend's house, or to football practise on Saturday.

If you must stay on the footpath until you're 15 (and we know how much pedestrians love bikes on the footpath, not to mention the fact that on-pavement cycle paths may as well not be there for all the notice that pedestrians take of them) what does a 14 year old who lives in an area with no footpaths do?

In all fairness, if you're not able to pass a simple written and practical test designed to allow 6-year-olds reasonably safe use of the roads, maybe you really, really should not be on a bike.

The instructions we got were on how to keep yourself safe, how to read road signs, how to make sure your bike is safe to cycle on. If you can't grasp this at age 14... sorry, not sure what kind of a dvise to give to someone like that.

Caliden

kylith wrote: »

Because if cyclists have to be licenced then no licence means no cycling, which means no spinning round to your friend's house, or to football practise on Saturday.

If you must stay on the footpath until you're 15 (and we know how much pedestrians love bikes on the footpath, not to mention the fact that on-pavement cycle paths may as well not be there for all the notice that pedestrians take of them) what does a 14 year old who lives in an area with no footpaths do?

You're getting off point and into the nitty gritty details of such a system.

Think higher level from a commuter stand point (as per the OP) rather than Jimmy who wants to go down the road to play football.

blackwhite

Tombo2001 wrote: »

they are legally entitled to do it. Its not dangerous. Its just that you dont like it.

I really dont see why you regard it as any more of an inconvenience than traffic lights or the fact that you cant use a bus lane during the day......

As I said earlier, motorists will tolerate all sorts of delays from other motorists, but if a cyclist slows them down they go berserk.

TBH, whether I'm walking, cycling or driving, I get annoyed at anyone who causes me a needless delay.
- be it the dawdlers walking 5 abreast blocking a footpath, the motorist parked in the cycle lane, the joggers in the Grand Canal cycle lane, the taxi driver who throws on the hazards and comes to a stop blocking the road, The c*nts who ignore yellow boxes, the idiots who hit the brakes every time they see a car on the other side of the road, or the cyclists ignoring opportunities to let a car pass safely by asserting their "entitlements" no matter what.

If I'm cycling and there's traffic building up behind me, I'll happily move in when it's safe to do so. I've had the misfortune of being in my car behind cyclists who weren't so considerate, and seemed to take great satisfaction from needlessly delaying people.

floggg

newport2 wrote: »

Anyone using the road (on 2 wheels or 4) who is causing a build-up of traffic behind should make every effort to let the other traffic past. Likewise, motorists should not attempt to pass unless it's safe to do so.

It's not about legal entitlement, it's about not being an inconsiderate a-hole.

We all share the road, and I say this as a regular cyclist who drives occasionally.

So unicyclists are free to do as they please then

newport2

floggg wrote: »

So unicyclists are free to do as they please then

Absolutely, tricyclists too!

stefanovich

blackwhite wrote: »

cyclists ignoring opportunities to let a car pass safely by asserting their "entitlements" no matter what.

This

kylith

Shenshen wrote: »

In all fairness, if you're not able to pass a simple written and practical test designed to allow 6-year-olds reasonably safe use of the roads, maybe you really, really should not be on a bike.

The instructions we got were on how to keep yourself safe, how to read road signs, how to make sure your bike is safe to cycle on. If you can't grasp this at age 14... sorry, not sure what kind of a dvise to give to someone like that.

I think I misunderstood - you don't have to be 15 to sit the test then? Do they have to carry ID or their licence with them at all times when cycling to prove that they're either over 15 or licenced?

Caliden wrote: »

You're getting off point and into the nitty gritty details of such a system.

Think higher level from a commuter stand point (as per the OP) rather than Jimmy who wants to go down the road to play football.

It does come down to the nitty gritty though. It's easy to say 'cyclists should have to be licenced/insured' but then it's a question of which ones can be licenced/insured; is it done by age? by ability? Is a 6 year old allowed to be on their own bike, or do they have to be on a carrier on their parent's? How young can you be licenced? How would it be enforced?

Shenshen

kylith wrote: »

I think I misunderstood - you don't have to be 15 to sit the test then? Do they have to carry ID or their licence with them at all times when cycling to prove that they're either over 15 or licenced?

No, the lessons and test happen when you're 6 years old. We got a badge to stick onto the back mudgard of our cycles back then, I'm not sure if that's still what's being done. We got a few spare ones, for when we'de get new bikes, etc.

If you did not have that badge and were under 15, you were not allowed to cycle on the road. Once you're 15, you had to have ID with you anyway (German law), so no big deal either way.

km991148

kylith wrote: »

It does come down to the nitty gritty though. It's easy to say 'cyclists should have to be licenced/insured' but then it's a question of which ones can be licenced/insured; is it done by age? by ability? Is a 6 year old allowed to be on their own bike, or do they have to be on a carrier on their parent's? How young can you be licenced? How would it be enforced?

I am sure that wont be a problem - some half @rsed rule will come in just like pension levy, services levy, household tax, USC etc etc

Next up - Pedestrian Permit (banded like parking), bicycle wheel tax, umbrella tax and talking sh!te on boards tax..

gramar

ThisRegard wrote: »

So they should be easy enough to dig out again, or link to the previous threads in which you mentioned them.



That's quite a difference from saying they're responsible for the majority. 1% is a percentage too.

I couldn't be bothered digging them out. You have google too. Do some legwork if you're that interested.

There were 3 studies that I saw - the lowest was about 40% and the highest said that in 60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault. I never mentioned 1% but even if that is all it was then that's a lot of accidents caused by road users who have no insurance to compensate for the damage or loss caused to others.

No Pants

Jawgap wrote: »

Which has been a boon to local businesses including to a large number of local businesses that have been set and sustained by this scheme......and paid local business rates, employer PRSI etc I'd say many of these businesses brought business to Main Street rather than leaving semi-derelict glass cathedrals to blight the outskirts of our towns......

Plus there's no loss to the Exchequer as it's highly unlikely anything more than a fraction of the bikes bought under the scheme would have have been bought in its absence.

Also has provided benefits to employers and, without being intended I'm sure, bike thieves.

ThisRegard

gramar wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered digging them out. You have google too. Do some legwork if you're that interested.

There were 3 studies that I saw - the lowest was about 40% and the highest said that in 60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault. I never mentioned 1% but even if that is all it was then that's a lot of accidents caused by road users who have no insurance to compensate for the damage or loss caused to others.

You made the claim, not me. So it's up to you to back up what I think is the dubious claim that cyclists can be the cause of up to 60% of accidents when the accident is between a car and a cyclist.

Caliden

kylith wrote: »

It does come down to the nitty gritty though. It's easy to say 'cyclists should have to be licenced/insured' but then it's a question of which ones can be licenced/insured; is it done by age? by ability? Is a 6 year old allowed to be on their own bike, or do they have to be on a carrier on their parent's? How young can you be licenced? How would it be enforced?

You're still getting stuck on one particular detail.

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's over 18's only that need to carry it and some beginner road safety is taught in schools for those under 18.

henryporter

So yesterday on the way to work I got diverted due to roadworks, ended up in a queue of traffic on a narrow byroad going nowhere until someone backed up, then stuck behind a tractor, also had to wait for a few cyclists to get around corners so that I could safely pass them and finally got to work without having lost my patience or temper with any of them - why not just chill the f*ck out OP, it would be safer for everyone on the road if you did.

Jawgap

Caliden wrote: »

You're still getting stuck on one particular detail.

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's over 18's only that need to carry it and some beginner road safety is taught in schools for those under 18.

No, because it would be completely unenforceable - like dog licences.


Why 18? What's the purpose of such a licence?

rubadub

Caliden wrote: »

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

it would make as much sense as a pedestrian licence. Nearly all the things asked here could be suggested for pedestrians too.

On my commute I see more pedestrians on the roads than cyclists, and usually doing far more dangerous things than people on bicycles.

But as most repressed bigots do happen to walk they cannot enjoy the auld "us vs them" mentality, so they turn a blind eye to pedestrians.

gramar

ThisRegard wrote: »

You made the claim, not me. So it's up to you to back up what I think is the dubious claim that cyclists can be the cause of up to 60% of accidents when the accident is between a car and a cyclist.

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions"

Source: Rospa Royal Society for the prevention of accidents
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

Talib Fiasco

old hippy wrote: »

Envy and hatred. Classy.

The more bikes on the road, the better. And why shouldn't people have the latest gear if they want to?

No problem with people who're avid cyclists...one of my best friends does it 24/7 and has all the top gear because he's at that level...it's the fools who appear for two or three weeks in the year with top of the line gear that trundle along ala a 3 year old on a tricycle that take the biscuit...

valderrama1

stefanovich wrote: »

This

Yeah.. it's just not realistic to assert anything on the road especially in the city centre. If you come out of there alive on a bike it's a win..

It should be the case that they can cycle safely but for that we would have to have a city like Copenhagen which clearly we don't... so until that's sorted it'll be constant frustration for both sides.

Dublin just isn't set up for bikes but of course without any proper bike lanes or bike parking facilities the government are setting up the bike to work scheme and the bike rental things..

Tombo2001

valderrama1 wrote: »

Yeah.. it's just not realistic to assert anything on the road especially in the city centre. If you come out of there alive on a bike it's a win..

It should be the case that they can cycle safely but for that we would have to have a city like Copenhagen which clearly we don't... so until that's sorted it'll be constant frustration for both sides.

Dublin just isn't set up for bikes but of course without any proper bike lanes or bike parking facilities the government are setting up the bike to work scheme and the bike rental things..

I wouldnt complain too much. We have a Taoiseach who is an avid cyclist. I believe Dublin City Council is quite cyclist friendly. Leo Varadkar was quite supportive as minister.

What we have on the other hand is a wider popular of motorists of whom a large number believe they own the roads, and a media that feeds into that perception.

Its just not realistic to expect cyclists to obey the rules when other road users (motorists, pedestrians) disregard them.

hatrickpatrick

mal1 wrote: »

Because bad driving kills, bad cycling is annoying. That's why.

This guy's dog was badly injured. A tiny bit more to the left and it would have been the guy himself, who without wanting to sound ageist was frail enough to have probably taken significant damage if he'd been the one hit.

Are you seriously telling me that a bike at full speed hitting a pedestrian wouldn't harm either the cyclist or the pedestrian?!

hatrickpatrick

No Pants wrote: »

Now I'm no fan of country people, with their strange odours, funny accents and incestuous ways, but even I have never suggested that they be confined to their homes until they've reached the age of 17 and passed a test. :eek:

Well done that man!

Would you oppose reg plates for bicycles then, so that light breakers could be flagged and fined automatically instead of just when a Garda happens to witness the incident?

Jawgap

gramar wrote: »

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions"

Source: Rospa Royal Society for the prevention of accidents
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

gramar wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered digging them out. You have google too. Do some legwork if you're that interested.

There were 3 studies that I saw - the lowest was about 40% and the highest said that in 60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault. I never mentioned 1% but even if that is all it was then that's a lot of accidents caused by road users who have no insurance to compensate for the damage or loss caused to others.

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

Tombo2001

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that a bike at full speed hitting a pedestrian wouldn't harm either the cyclist or the pedestrian?!

You can make that argument, and of course you are right.

however the primary problem that motorists have - as exhibited in the OP of this thread - is not they they feel threatened by cyclists, but that they feel inconvenienced by them. That is the debate at hand.

secondrowgal

blackwhite wrote: »

Whilst I agree with what you've posted, I was referring to cyclists not checking changing lanes.

If you aren't capable of, or willing to, check over your shoulder when changing lanes, then you probably shouldn't be cycling on the road. (same applies for motorists as well - and plenty of motorists are as bad for just wildly swinging between lanes).

Yeah, gotcha, and I agree with you 100%, which is why I usually get off the bike at that junction I told you about. It's maybe just a particular situation where the turn is too close to the lights and it's a tight fit (finar, finar!), so it's not the best place for having to look over your shoulder.

Thargor

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here , but I have a serious pain my ass with cyclist entitlement when I'm driving to work in the morning. Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road , they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine, but cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods.

It's also grinds my gears that they slow down my trip into work by 5-10 minutes everyday by taking up the lanes , slowing down traffic , slowing down crossing lanes and they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

Surely with the ammount of cyclists now they should be paying something to use the public roads even a flat fee of €30 a year or something. Don't even get me started on breaking red lights or cycling out in front of cars , I know there's laws taking action against this now but from what I see it hasn't really stopped it.

Whe I cycle through a built up area I can only go about 12-15 kph max with lots of stopping and starting, if it wasnt for all these cars on the roads slowing me down Id be doing 28-30 kph, funny that.

Rackstar

Does some sort of alert go out when someone opens a thread bashing cyclists?

hatrickpatrick

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

At risk of recycling an extremely extensively made point at this stage:

Motor tax =/= Road tax

Most of us understand that, we just don't agree with it.

humanji

If you can't comment without insulting a person or groups of people, then just don't comment.

Caliden

Jawgap wrote: »

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

Even he did come post another 2 studies you would find something to nit pick.

It's a catch 22

hatrickpatrick

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You can make that argument, and of course you are right.

however the primary problem that motorists have - as exhibited in the OP of this thread - is not they they feel threatened by cyclists, but that they feel inconvenienced by them. That is the debate at hand.

Agreed, I'm simply giving a pedestrian's point of view - a speeding object breaking traffic lights where pedestrians have a green man, especially in a crowded area, is dangerous. That applies whether it's a car, bike, or indeed another pedestrian. Putting people at risk in this manner should carry consequences regardless of the type of vehicle one is operating - if you're driving something capable of moving fast enough to injure somebody, it should have a reg plate so that your ass can be fined if you're caught doing something dangerous. Otherwise there's no deterrent to this kind of thing.

endacl

Rackstar wrote: »

Does some sort of alert go out when someone opens a thread bashing cyclists?

Or a filter. Send it straight to The Cuckoo's Nest...

:rolleyes:

Jawgap

Caliden wrote: »

Even he did come post another 2 studies you would find something to nit pick.

It's a catch 22

No, I promise if he comes up with the 2 studies I'll acknowledge that point and not nitpick or comment on them.

old hippy

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

Don't take things too literally...maybe w*nkers would have been more apt but it's just a slur anyway

Calling people that word can be taken as offensive, whether meant in jest or no.

It's being used in a negative context here, as you don't like "weekend cyclists" or whatever folks these are...

sarkozy

Jawgap wrote: »

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

There was an article in the Guardian, relating to the UK, which has a similar cycling environment to our own, which reported that in court rulings on cyclist/driver collisions, 60-70% of judgements were in favour of the cyclist. This is the clearest statistic available in the UK (and a strong indicator for Ireland) of who is more often than not responsible for these incidents. This is evidence that needs to be repeated often, worked into policy, and then into actual implementation.

On another note, it's again worth mentioning, OP, that, whether it's bad etiquette or not, in Ireland cyclists are perfectly entitled to take lanes and the Road Safety Authority gives advice to cyclists to take lanes in situations where they would be safer to do so. It may be frustrating to drivers, but it's a matter of life or death for cyclists.