Cyclists breaking lights!!

Spook_ie

Gongoozler wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

There ya are spook, for starters.

Perhaps you'd like to revisit my posts and tell me where I said it was mandatory for cyclists to use cycle lanes. I believe I said it was mandatory for vehicles to avoid crossing Rrm022 whereas it isn't mandatory to avoid crossing Rrm022.

Perhaps you can also see why I also allow doubt of any one particular post unless there is supporting evidence considering you failed to understand the differences between mandatory and advisory lane markings despite being able to read my posts at leisure rather than relying on human memory of a situation you were involved in

CatFromHue

I brake lights all the time on my bike.

Don't wear lights or a helmet either.

You can beep and shout at me all you like. I don't care as I won't be able to hear you over my headphones.

The Duke of Moral Hazard

suicide_circus wrote: »

Anyone who tries to claim that the same percentage of motorists as cyclists break red lights is either delusional or lying.

I see motorists breaking reds at nearly every traffic light, sometimes multiple cars even break the same light.

They do it in a very different way than cyclists however. A cyclist might break the light if there is no traffic coming the other way, or turning left (usually merging into a perpendicular cycle lane).

Motorists on the other hand tends to speed up and gun the amber light, the first car might make the amber but usually the second behind it speeds up to catch the car in front and the light is well red before they break it. As I said, not only does this happen nearly any time I care to look, sometimes you see whole trains of cars suspending their disbelief and plowing through a light that has just changed to red.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Your point is made pointless by the other details given.

If you don't want to accept the detail in the poster's post without giving any good reason, then we might as well say that all of the post is fiction -- we might as well imagine that the poster was actually running at night in the cycle lane, dressed all in black, wheeling a black wheelbarrow without any lights on it... and there was no bus, its was a large green elephant which cut him off.

I see several posts where cyclists presume that the original ops story is fictional, I don't 100% believe anything without independent proof which is why I look into alternative reasons and causes. Your sarcasm about green elephants etc does little other than reveal your disparaging nature.

The Duke of Moral Hazard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not much point on cameras on red lights/ junctions until you figure out how to identify miscreants who don't have identifying plates or are you only suggesting that registered vehicles should be penalised?

Cyclists should be perfectly entitled to run reds turning left where there's a cycle lane IMO. The cyclist isn't pulling out across traffic, merely merging what should be another cycle lane. The junction at the end of Bird avenue is a good example of how this should work in practice, the light is perpetually amber for cyclist turning left as they seamlessly merge with traffic.

If it's a crossroads at a red light, obviously this situation is different, as you would cross the road and the flow of traffic. In this scenario a red light obviously makes sense for cyclists as much as it does for cars.

Spook_ie

The Duke of Moral Hazard wrote: »

Cyclists should be perfectly entitled to run reds turning left where there's a cycle lane IMO. The cyclist isn't pulling out across traffic, merely merging what should be a cycle lane. The junction at the end of Bird avenue is a good example of how this should work in practice, the light is perpetually amber for cyclist turning left as they seamlessly merge with traffic.

If it's a crossroads at a red light, obviously this situation is different, as you would cross the road and the flow of traffic. In this scenario a red light obviously makes sense for cyclists as much as it does for cars.

Traffic lights though are as much to do with controlling traffic 50-100 meters down the road. Imagine a set of lights where all the cyclists are turning left regardless of the color. Now imagine a junction 100 meters down the road and a driver waiting for the gap the red lights should be generating in the traffic flow to pull out but being stopped from doing so by all the cyclists.

The other fella

I just wish they would **** off up on to the footpath. They dont pay a penny road tax.

flas

monument wrote: »

You were being silly acting shocked that "a grown man in his 30s" nearly did such a thing -- the reality is that grown men in their 30s manage to knock people down when they are driving so it's not shocking that they would nearly hit a pram when cycling.

How the hell are you defending that moron?he was clearly in the wrong. The reaso I mentioned his age is because anyone of any age can hop on a bike where as to drive you have to be an adult, I would be equally as shocked if someone driving a car had ran a red light and nearly hit a pram, the whole thing with his age was to show it wasn't a kid with stabilisers(?) on his feckin bike who doesn't know any better, it was a fully grown adult who should know better.

Gongoozler

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to revisit my posts and tell me where I said it was mandatory for cyclists to use cycle lanes. I believe I said it was mandatory for vehicles to avoid crossing Rrm022 whereas it isn't mandatory to avoid crossing Rrm022.

Perhaps you can also see why I also allow doubt of any one particular post unless there is supporting evidence considering you failed to understand the differences between mandatory and advisory lane markings despite being able to read my posts at leisure rather than relying on human memory of a situation you were involved in

I can't see what those signs are, I'm presuming broken and non broken. My point was there is no difference between cycle lanes anymore despite you wanting there to be one. Regardless of any of your sh!teing on, he was completely wrong. Was it you driving the bus by any chance?

And about the memory thing you obviously don't understand how human memory works.

Look stop trying to defend the indefensible. You just look stupid.

Anyway continue arguing all you want, I'm not going to respond to your silly posts again.

Pinch Flat

The other fella wrote: »

I just wish they would **** off up on to the footpath. They dont pay a penny road tax.

Lol. The voice of reason at last.

Nono Toure

I was walking in Galway city a few days ago, I was on a narrow footpath along with others, and a guy in front of me was walking with a wheelie suitcase , he stepped off the footpath for a split second as there was too many people on it, his back was to a cyclist approaching.

The cyclist then started roaring & shouting telling him to fcuking watch where he's going and what the fcuk is he doing walking out in front of him etc.. The reality was that the cyclist could have easily just cycled passed this guy but instead he decided to have a go..

Anyways the cyclist kept going and approaching a junction where the lights were red and which also had cars at each side he didn't even hesitate he just kept on going right through the red lights..

One rule for him, and another for pedestrians it seems. He is a sap.

monument

flas wrote: »

How the hell are you defending that moron?he was clearly in the wrong. The reaso I mentioned his age is because anyone of any age can hop on a bike where as to drive you have to be an adult, I would be equally as shocked if someone driving a car had ran a red light and nearly hit a pram, the whole thing with his age was to show it wasn't a kid with stabilisers(?) on his feckin bike who doesn't know any better, it was a fully grown adult who should know better.

I'm not defending him, I'm talking about your strange perspective on age. I spent six months wheeling my newborn's pram around Dublin City Centre and it becomes not at all shocking for drivers in their 30s or 40s to break red lights even when a pram in on front of them. Their age has little or no relevance to their behaviour on the road and you are putting your self in danger if you presume people cycling/driving in their 30s are safer than teenagers -- that's my point.

And a child on a bicycle with stabilisers on O'Connell Street would be a lot more shocking than anything we're talking about!

The other fella wrote: »

I just wish they would **** off up on to the footpath. They dont pay a penny road tax.

Linking those two things is the best logic ever!

(Or if you're trolling, good troll)

Spook_ie wrote: »

I see several posts where cyclists presume that the original ops story is fictional, I don't 100% believe anything without independent proof which is why I look into alternative reasons and causes. Your sarcasm about green elephants etc does little other than reveal your disparaging nature.

You're dismissing bits of posts out of hand apparently just to further your little boards.ie war on cycling and then you have cheek to say I have a "disparaging nature"?!?

Just a little reminder because it seems that you are unclear what I'm doing: All I'm doing extending your silly logic of not trusting posters and turning your disparaging nature back onto you -- like a mirror reflecting back onto you.

People don't indicate all the time and buses cut in on top of people cycling every day, so presuming any if that is fictional is silly and it just shows you're motivated by your silly little war against cycling.

suicide_circus

I have never met anyone who rides a fixie who isnt a complete and utter wanker.

ezra_pound

The other fella wrote: »

I just wish they would **** off up on to the footpath. They dont pay a penny road tax.

To use the road you must pay imaginary road tax. Let's imagine that no cyclists pay this fictional entity thereby disinheriting them of their right to the roads. Now let's banish them to a real place where they're not allowed legally ride - the footpath.

The reality is that it is motorists who will be progressively banished from large sections of our roads over the next few years and progressively more and more cyclists will be getting back in the saddle cruising down Michael d. 's highway.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

If i was minister for transport

I would impose a law that all bicycles be embedded with a chassis number which would make it unique to an owner with a type of log book.

Then make it compulsory to have a minimum third party insurance in order to use your bicycle in a public place in the event of an accident. And the gardai would check this by the chassis number.

The chassis number idea is also good as it could be used like a car to stop someone giving false details. Just the chassis and link it back to the owner at the address etc.

It would also help prevent stolen bicycles too and help find bikes that would be stolen.

also cumpolsery to wear a helmet and high viz.... again if not it would be a fixed penalty notice just like insurance.

The problem is too all these dublin bikes coke zero gobshoites that just hop on a bike and go and dont give a flying feck whats going on or care about their safety and the safety of others. No way should they be allowed cycle down grafton street at shopping time like they do.

Anyway.. i want the chassis idea and mandatory insurance for bikes.

Gongoozler

The helmet idea is ridiculous, there are more head injuries on drivers than cyclists, yet you don't see drivers wear helmets.

I do agree with the insurance though, people using the roads should have to be liable for what they are responsible for. Though aren't there some states in the US that it isn't mandatory to have insurance? Wonder how that works out.

ezra_pound

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

If i was minister for transport

I would impose a law that all bicycles be embedded with a chassis number which would make it unique to an owner with a type of log book.

Then make it compulsory to have a minimum third party insurance in order to use your bicycle in a public place in the event of an accident. And the gardai would check this by the chassis number.

The chassis number idea is also good as it could be used like a car to stop someone giving false details. Just the chassis and link it back to the owner at the address etc.

It would also help prevent stolen bicycles too and help find bikes that would be stolen.

also cumpolsery to wear a helmet and high viz.... again if not it would be a fixed penalty notice just like insurance.

The problem is too all these dublin bikes coke zero gobshoites that just hop on a bike and go and dont give a flying feck whats going on or care about their safety and the safety of others. No way should they be allowed cycle down grafton street at shopping time like they do.

Anyway.. i want the chassis idea and mandatory insurance for bikes.

Lol

Comedy

ezra_pound

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

If i was minister for transport

I would impose a law that all bicycles be embedded with a chassis number which would make it unique to an owner with a type of log book.

Then make it compulsory to have a minimum third party insurance in order to use your bicycle in a public place in the event of an accident. And the gardai would check this by the chassis number.

The chassis number idea is also good as it could be used like a car to stop someone giving false details. Just the chassis and link it back to the owner at the address etc.

It would also help prevent stolen bicycles too and help find bikes that would be stolen.

also cumpolsery to wear a helmet and high viz.... again if not it would be a fixed penalty notice just like insurance.

The problem is too all these dublin bikes coke zero gobshoites that just hop on a bike and go and dont give a flying feck whats going on or care about their safety and the safety of others. No way should they be allowed cycle down grafton street at shopping time like they do.

Anyway.. i want the chassis idea and mandatory insurance for bikes.

They're not allowed ride down Grafton Street.

The rest of your post is absolute rubbish.

swingking

I've come across so many cyclists who don't obey the pedestrian lights. So I take photos of them going through and let them know I will be passing this info on to the gardai.

And I would be fully entitled to take as many photos of them as I want.

First Up

monument wrote: »

Anyway, back to your claim:

You said "studies in the UK show that they cause about the same amount of injuries as cars", the article you linked to said "figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled" -- these two statements are not the same thing.

The fact is, as the source article said: "While the chances of a cyclist causing serious injury to pedestrians as a proportion of distance travelled are comparable to the risks posed by drivers, motor vehicles are responsible for a far higher number of deaths and serious injuries in absolute terms."


Maybe it would be clearer to you if I said that the statistics show that a cyclist is as likely to cause injury as a car driver.

To give you an illustration; in the next couple of years, China will become the world's larges consumer of wine. Now who do you think is more likely to be seen drinking a glass of wine - A Chinese man or a Frenchman?

EazyD

Tony EH wrote: »

Given the choice of being clipped by a cyclist and some ejit ambler gambler motorist, I know the choice EVERYONE would make.

I've probably mentioned this on here before but I personally know of 2 people who've been killed after getting swiped by cyclists breaking red lights.

Pinch Flat

swingking wrote: »

I've come across so many cyclists who don't obey the pedestrian lights. So I take photos of them going through and let them know I will be passing this info on to the gardai.

And I would be fully entitled to take as many photos of them as I want.

Do you do this for cyclists only or motorists as well? Sounds like a great service you're providing.

First Up

ezra_pound wrote: »

They're not allowed ride down Grafton Street.

I think that is the point.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

If i was minister for transport

I would impose a law that all bicycles be embedded with a chassis number which would make it unique to an owner with a type of log book.

Then make it compulsory to have a minimum third party insurance in order to use your bicycle in a public place in the event of an accident. And the gardai would check this by the chassis number.

The chassis number idea is also good as it could be used like a car to stop someone giving false details. Just the chassis and link it back to the owner at the address etc.

It would also help prevent stolen bicycles too and help find bikes that would be stolen.

also cumpolsery to wear a helmet and high viz.... again if not it would be a fixed penalty notice just like insurance.

The problem is too all these dublin bikes coke zero gobshoites that just hop on a bike and go and dont give a flying feck whats going on or care about their safety and the safety of others. No way should they be allowed cycle down grafton street at shopping time like they do.

Anyway.. i want the chassis idea and mandatory insurance for bikes.

Bikes already have a seriel number, you would know this if you did your homework and knew what you were talking about.

That part in bold indicates that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Musa Thoughtless Swine wrote: »

Bikes already have a seriel number, you would know this if you did your homework and knew what you were talking about.

That part in bold indicates that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Why be so opposed to wearing a helmet and high viz ?

I was driving down the country in an unlit bendy road with a speed limit of 80kmh...... in the opposite direction i saw a cyclist with no lights, no high viz and no helmet.

Your telling me thats alright ?

Chips Lovell

If i was minister for transport I'd try get the rozzers to apply existing laws regarding cycling before coming up with even more regulations that won't be enforced.

SeanW

ezra_pound wrote: »

They're not allowed ride down Grafton Street.

In theory ... in practice I've only once seen a cyclist stopped by the guards on it.

safetyboy

swingking wrote: »

I've come across so many cyclists who don't obey the pedestrian lights. So I take photos of them going through and let them know I will be passing this info on to the gardai.

And I would be fully entitled to take as many photos of them as I want.

you take photo's while you are driving? you must have a busy day going in to the gardai every time a courier passes you?

ThisRegard

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

If i was minister for transport

I would impose a law that all bicycles be embedded with a chassis number which would make it unique to an owner with a type of log book.

You meant something like, I don't know, an existing serial number ?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I was driving down the country in an unlit bendy road with a speed limit of 80kmh...... in the opposite direction i saw a cyclist with no lights, no high viz and no helmet.

Your telling me thats alright ?

But you saw the cyclist despite the lack of high vis and helmet, so what's your problem ?

swingking wrote: »

I've come across so many cyclists who don't obey the pedestrian lights. So I take photos of them going through and let them know I will be passing this info on to the gardai.

And I would be fully entitled to take as many photos of them as I want.

LOL. I'm sure they get straight on to Interpol in order to identify them from the photos, skip the queue of other agencies trying to identify boring old terrorists.

Macy0161

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I was driving down the country in an unlit bendy road with a speed limit of 80kmh...... in the opposite direction i saw a cyclist with no lights, no high viz and no helmet.

Lack of lights is the issue there. You'd see them if they had lights, so why the need for hi viz? The helmet doesn't help you see them anyway.