Cyclists should do a theory test!

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Which approach do you recommend?



or perhaps
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=41250118

Ironic given that it's exactly what you're doing in relation to issues involving cyclists.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

Which approach do you recommend?



or perhaps
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=41250118

We're discussing the introduction of a theory test for cyclists. Why are you listing the names and circumstances of people killed on the roads?

CramCycle

StewartGriffin wrote: »

We're discussing the introduction of a theory test for cyclists. Why are you listing the names and circumstances of people killed on the roads?

Because your missing the cost:benefit of such an idea, I presume that why, there are far more effective things to be doing with the money that this will cost.

Lets say though, for arguments sake that the cost of doing this scheme is ringfenced for cyclists safety, improvement in road behaviour etc. It can't go into other projects or road safety initiatives, it must be spent on an initiative to improve cyclists behaviour and safety (because apparently we are all RLJing assh@ts).

It still stands that a far smarter move would be to have FPNs up and running, and funneling this ginormous pot of money towards enforcement and education in schools rather than towards a theory test, which will do nothing without the other two anyway.

The Dark Side

Came across another muppet cyclist this morning on the Quays.
He seemed to be labouring under the impression that sticking his arm out to turn right conferred some magical right-of-way powers onto him and allowed him to weave across the road directly in front of me.

A prolonged beep of the horn soon reminded him that I had right of way and he was to remain in the left lane until he actually had a gap to move over.

The glare and gesture he gave me in the side window was priceless.

I laughed back and him, proffered him the middle-finger and continued on my way.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

We're discussing the introduction of a theory test for cyclists. Why are you listing the names and circumstances of people killed on the roads?

Have I not mentioned this before? Because the folks who work on transport policy, and the legislators who work on transport law, and the Gardai who work on transport enforcement all cover motorists and cyclists. So any focus on 'safety' initiatives for cyclists (who don't kill anyone on the road) will take resources away from safety initiatives for motorists (who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others).

smash wrote: »

Ironic given that it's exactly what you're doing in relation to issues involving cyclists.

Have I not mentioned this before? Yes, cyclists do break traffic laws and I'm sure they probably cause an injury or two. They don't kill anyone, and they don't figure in injury statistics as significant.

The folks who work on transport policy, and the legislators who work on transport law, and the Gardai who work on transport enforcement all cover motorists and cyclists. So any focus on 'safety' initiatives for cyclists (who don't kill anyone on the road) will take resources away from safety initiatives for motorists (who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others).

RainyDay

The Dark Side wrote: »

Came across another muppet cyclist this morning on the Quays.
He seemed to be labouring under the impression that sticking his arm out to turn right conferred some magical right-of-way powers onto him and allowed him to weave across the road directly in front of me.

A prolonged beep of the horn soon reminded him that I had right of way and he was to remain in the left lane until he actually had a gap to move over.

The glare and gesture he gave me in the side window was priceless.

I laughed back and him, proffered him the middle-finger and continued on my way.

Gee, you're so butch and macho. I'm just so impressed at your bravery from behind the wheel of your ton of steel. And your charm and good manners too - all top of the league.

homerjay2005

as a cyclist and a motorist in Dublin, i can honestly say the problem in this City lies with the drivers.

the amount of people you see driving on cycle lanes or breaking red lights is getting worse and worse. i can honestly say its the most Dangerous City ive been in for cyclists yet they always seem to get blamed.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Have I not mentioned this before? Yes, cyclists do break traffic laws and I'm sure they probably cause an injury or two. They don't kill anyone, and they don't figure in injury statistics as significant.

Just google 'cyclist kills pedestrian' and you'll find that you're wrong again.

RainyDay wrote: »

The folks who work on transport policy, and the legislators who work on transport law, and the Gardai who work on transport enforcement all cover motorists and cyclists. So any focus on 'safety' initiatives for cyclists (who don't kill anyone on the road) will take resources away from safety initiatives for motorists (who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others).

While they may cover motorists and cyclists, they rarely enforce the laws upon cyclists.

Grandpa Hassan

The Dark Side wrote: »

Came across another muppet cyclist this morning on the Quays.
He seemed to be labouring under the impression that sticking his arm out to turn right conferred some magical right-of-way powers onto him and allowed him to weave across the road directly in front of me.

A prolonged beep of the horn soon reminded him that I had right of way and he was to remain in the left lane until he actually had a gap to move over.

The glare and gesture he gave me in the side window was priceless.

I laughed back and him, proffered him the middle-finger and continued on my way.

Wow....you're a tough guy.

That's pretty much how I cycle. In a constant stream of traffic, with people who will not let you out, you have to signal and go. Otherwise you get closer and closer and then stuck at the junction and have to make much more dangerous last minute manoevres.

It is well documented in London (links posted earlier on this thread) that it is the timid cyclists who do not push out into the traffic who get killed. Hugely disproportionate number of women. And before you ask, the UK transport survey (also preciously posted) found that most accidents were driver fault, with no blame on the cyclist

The Dark Side

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

you have to signal and go.

I think we have a 'theory-test' candidate in the thread.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Just google 'cyclist kills pedestrian' and you'll find that you're wrong again.

Try googling with Country = Ireland and Timescale = last ten years, and watch the tumbleweed blowing across your screen.

In the meantime, three or four thousand people were killed by motorists.

smash wrote: »

While they may cover motorists and cyclists, they rarely enforce the laws upon cyclists.

Yes, I agree. They do rarely enforce the laws upon cyclists.

Or upon motorists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

check_six

The Dark Side wrote: »

Came across another muppet cyclist this morning on the Quays.
He seemed to be labouring under the impression that sticking his arm out to turn right conferred some magical right-of-way powers onto him and allowed him to weave across the road directly in front of me.

A prolonged beep of the horn soon reminded him that I had right of way and he was to remain in the left lane until he actually had a gap to move over.

The glare and gesture he gave me in the side window was priceless.

I laughed back and him, proffered him the middle-finger and continued on my way.

We were discussing this kind of scenario on another thread, but from the perspective of a car turning across a bike track. The same rules apply, but there was a bit of confusion expressed. A driver was under the impression that the person in the bike track had to give way to traffic turning across them. Clearly, the vehicles heading straight on have right of way and the vehicles turning must wait.

Unfortunately, there are some bike tracks where the road engineers have thought it a good idea to jumble this concept around and try to take right of way away from the bikes heading straight on. This is a very dangerous design philosophy. Imagine if vehicles in the outside lane could swing across you and you were expected to give way. This is why some bike tracks are just not safe to cycle in, which seems contradictory to the untrained eye.

Making a right hand turn on a bike is tricky at the best of times as many cyclists will not have the skills or the confidence to "take the lane" to make a gap for themselves. Some parts of the quays have been made a bit easier with the 30kph limit, but as we know this is not strictly adhered to by all motor traffic.

Indicating does not give anyone a right of way, but sometimes it's nice to let someone out rather than have a confrontation. The good bit of the karmic wheel will tend to pay you back sooner rather than later.

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

A prolonged beep of the horn

The Dark Side wrote: »

I laughed back and him, proffered him the middle-finger and continued on my way.

Glad you dealt with this maturely and responsibly. We need more drivers like you on the roads.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd personally rather live in a society were we don't just ignore illegal acts because it's convenient.

Have you bothered to ask any gardai why they are not enforcing the law? I doubt they would tell you it's solely because its convenient.

I would hate to live in a society where every illegal act is chased after by the gardai. It would be an appalling waste of resources chasing down every 5 year old on their tricycle on a footpath, and pedestrians illegally crossing a totally empty road.

There is going to be €50 on the spot fines for cyclists at the end of the summer -motorists can expect longer car journeys because of this. There is talk of having traffic lights that allow cyclists to go first, further delaying motorists. The hate for cyclists is going to increase a lot more, because they are obeying the law. Expect a lot more to cycle on the roads rather than cycle on what are apparently cycletracks - as many are techinically footpaths due to incorrect signage.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rogue-cyclists-facing-50-fine-for-breaking-red-lights-31303040.html

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

These are real people dying on the roads. People like 30 year old Linda Griffin, killed by a 21-year-old male motorist while walking home at 1.30 am in Wexford last week. People like Enda Wickham, the 22 year old young man killed when his own car hit a ditch in Wexford last week. Or the 22 year old man killed when his tractor hit a ditch in Cork last week. Or the 60 year old man killed in Laois when his car collided with another car last week. Or the 55 year old man killed on the N17 when his car was hit by another car. If you want to look over the border, we could talk about the 5 year old girl killed by a car in Co Down.

These are real people, with real families.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

We're discussing the introduction of a theory test for cyclists. Why are you listing the names and circumstances of people killed on the roads?

RainyDay wrote: »

Have I not mentioned this before? Because the folks who work on transport policy, and the legislators who work on transport law, and the Gardai who work on transport enforcement all cover motorists and cyclists. So any focus on 'safety' initiatives for cyclists (who don't kill anyone on the road) will take resources away from safety initiatives for motorists (who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others)

You're deliberately avoiding the question I'm asking, that being why you think it's appropriate to use the names and circumstances of individuals killed on the road as props in your argument against introducing a theory test for cyclists?

A disgusting debating tactic in my opinion.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Try googling with Country = Ireland and Timescale = last ten years, and watch the tumbleweed blowing across your screen.

Oh ok, we're changing goalposts again.

RainyDay wrote: »

In the meantime, three or four thousand people were killed by motorists.

Again, it's not what we're discussing. But you know as well as anyone else that a machine that weights around 1.5 tonnes is inevitably going to cause more damage, especially when there's more of them on the road than there are bicycles. There's hundreds of thousands pumped every year into driver safety and education and numbers for deaths are decreasing so it's obviously working. Suggesting that there should be advances in cyclist safety and education is reasonable in my opinion and it should not be diluted by statistics from motorists.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, I agree. They do rarely enforce the laws upon cyclists.

Or upon motorists.
YOUTUBE LINK

Whoever shot that is an idiot. Disregarding the colour of the lights, you should only cross when it's safe to do so. Seems like this clown is just looking for an insurance claim.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

You're deliberately avoiding the question I'm asking, that being why you think it's appropriate to use the names and circumstances of individuals killed on the road as props in your argument against introducing a theory test for cyclists?

A disgusting debating tactic in my opinion.

Actually, I thought your question was rhetorical, but if you want an answer, that's fine. I thought the answer was fairly clear from the context.

I used real names because MadDog seemed to think there was something funny about 200 people being killed each year. Use of real names and real people just might persuade him to think twice.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Oh ok, we're changing goalposts again.

No changing of goalposts at all. If you want some phyrric victory out of getting me to admit that cyclists can kill pedestrians, then sure, I've no problem in clarifying that cyclists can kill pedestrians. There seems to be 1 or 2 such incidents each year in the UK. The last case I've come across in Ireland was around 2004 in Baggot St. In that case, the cyclist didn't actually hit the pedestrian, but caused him to fall and hit his head, so same outcome really.

So yes, cyclists can kill pedestrians, but it is a very, very rare event in Ireland.

smash wrote: »

Again, it's not what we're discussing. But you know as well as anyone else that a machine that weights around 1.5 tonnes is inevitably going to cause more damage, especially when there's more of them on the road than there are bicycles.

Thanks for bringing forward a very important issue. Many people treat deaths on the road as inevitable. But they're not - they are largely avoidable. If motorists will slow down, stop drinking and drugging and drive like it's YOUR child on the bike in front, most of these deaths are avoidable. They're not 'accidents'.

smash wrote: »

There's hundreds of thousands pumped every year into driver safety and education and numbers for deaths are decreasing so it's obviously working. Suggesting that there should be advances in cyclist safety and education is reasonable in my opinion and it should not be diluted by statistics from motorists.

It's great to see the numbers decreasing all right, but I'm not as clear as to the cause of this decrease as yourself. You attribute it to driver safety and education - but what about increased enforcement (like random breath tests) and increased vehicle safety (with better brakes and air bags). There are lots of reasons for the decrease.

smash wrote: »

Suggesting that there should be advances in cyclist safety and education is reasonable in my opinion and it should not be diluted by statistics from motorists.

I'm not sure that your opinion (or my opinion) is a good reason for changing public policy. How about some evidence?

smash wrote: »

Whoever shot that is an idiot. Disregarding the colour of the lights, you should only cross when it's safe to do so. Seems like this clown is just looking for an insurance claim.

I think you've missed the point of the video somewhat. It's like you're wearing blinkers.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks for bringing forward a very important issue. Many people treat deaths on the road as inevitable. But they're not - they are largely avoidable. If motorists will slow down, stop drinking and drugging and drive like it's YOUR child on the bike in front, most of these deaths are avoidable. They're not 'accidents'.

They are inevitable. There will never be a zero death toll.

RainyDay wrote: »

It's great to see the numbers decreasing all right, but I'm not as clear as to the cause of this decrease as yourself. You attribute it to driver safety and education - but what about increased enforcement (like random breath tests) and increased vehicle safety (with better brakes and air bags). There are lots of reasons for the decrease.

Yes, that's all par for the course with advancement.

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not sure that your opinion (or my opinion) is a good reason for changing public policy. How about some evidence?

But like you've admitted, there's never any statistics to say out straight who's at fault in these accidents. I think it was RSA that released a report which stated that 33% of the accidents involving bicycles outside of daylight hours involved cyclists who did not have lights on their bikes. Others said it contradicted police reports (where made), but RSA claims dept had admittance of liability from the cyclists. So in a nutshell, unless taken seriously and reported correctly for statistical purposes we'll never know.

RainyDay wrote: »

I think you've missed the point of the video somewhat. It's like you're wearing blinkers.

No, I saw the cyclists and motorists breaking the lights, but that doesn't take away from the actions of whoever filmed it.

Spook_ie

check_six wrote: »

We were discussing this kind of scenario on another thread, but from the perspective of a car turning across a bike track. The same rules apply, but there was a bit of confusion expressed. A driver was under the impression that the person in the bike track had to give way to traffic turning across them. Clearly, the vehicles heading straight on have right of way and the vehicles turning must wait.

Unfortunately, there are some bike tracks where the road engineers have thought it a good idea to jumble this concept around and try to take right of way away from the bikes heading straight on. This is a very dangerous design philosophy. Imagine if vehicles in the outside lane could swing across you and you were expected to give way. This is why some bike tracks are just not safe to cycle in, which seems contradictory to the untrained eye.

Making a right hand turn on a bike is tricky at the best of times as many cyclists will not have the skills or the confidence to "take the lane" to make a gap for themselves. Some parts of the quays have been made a bit easier with the 30kph limit, but as we know this is not strictly adhered to by all motor traffic.

Indicating does not give anyone a right of way, but sometimes it's nice to let someone out rather than have a confrontation. The good bit of the karmic wheel will tend to pay you back sooner rather than later.

Incorrect, there are SPECIFIC circumstances when turning left that place the obligation on traffic going straight to yield the RoW.

SI332/2012 specificly states

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—


(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,


(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or


(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Incorrect, there are SPECIFIC circumstances when turning left that place the obligation on traffic going straight to yield the RoW.

SI332/2012 specificly states

But wasn't the scenario above different - the cyclist was ahead of the motorist attempting to turning left. The scenario your quoted is for cyclists coming up the inside left of cars at junctions - the drivers indicating has the right of way

As pointed out above, the patch work of cycling lanes can make some on these manoeuvres dangerous for a cyclist if they were to strictly follow the cycle lane.

Anyway there's the law and there's common respect for other road users - I'm sure blaring the horn and flipping a finger as you pass them is not set out in traffic legislation or the ROR either

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

But wasn't the scenario above different - the cyclist was ahead of the motorist attempting to turning left. The scenario your quoted is for cyclists coming up the inside left of cars at junctions - the drivers indicating has the right of way

As pointed out above, the patch work of cycling lanes can make some on these manoeuvres dangerous for a cyclist if they were to strictly follow the cycle lane.

Anyway there's the law and there's common respect for other road users - I'm sure blaring the horn and flipping a finger as you pass them is not set out in traffic legislation or the ROR either

Don't know which thread he's referring to, but as stated there are specific laws and circumstances where the RoW lies with the turning vehicle.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't know which thread he's referring to, but as stated there are specific laws and circumstances where the RoW lies with the turning vehicle.

Not denying that. But there's also scenarios where a cyclist following the cycle path ahead of a car can be directed in front of a car

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347326,-6.424664,3a,75y,206.93h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshF6tCzl0VTEEhYG_4iCsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

They are inevitable. There will never be a zero death toll.

Why?

smash wrote: »

But like you've admitted, there's never any statistics to say out straight who's at fault in these accidents. I think it was RSA that released a report which stated that 33% of the accidents involving bicycles outside of daylight hours involved cyclists who did not have lights on their bikes. Others said it contradicted police reports (where made), but RSA claims dept had admittance of liability from the cyclists. So in a nutshell, unless taken seriously and reported correctly for statistical purposes we'll never know.

Let's not confuse two issues. I think the RSA report you mention was about incidents involving cyclists. If we look at the death toll on the roads, the number
of deaths involving cyclists is very small - 12 out of 200 or similar last year - around 5%. So even if we assumed that ALL of those incidents were the fault of the cyclist (and that's a bit assumption), that leaves 95% of incidents that were not the fault of cyclists.

So why on earth would you focus your attention now on the 5% instead of the 95%?

smash wrote: »

No, I saw the cyclists and motorists breaking the lights, but that doesn't take away from the actions of whoever filmed it.

And you reckon the important message from the video relates to the possible actions of the videographer (though you can't actually see what he did or didn't do), and not the large number of dangerous motor vehicles breaking the lights/law?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Why?

Because human error.

RainyDay wrote: »

Let's not confuse two issues. I think the RSA report you mention was about incidents involving cyclists. If we look at the death toll on the roads, the number
of deaths involving cyclists is very small - 12 out of 200 or similar last year - around 5%. So even if we assumed that ALL of those incidents were the fault of the cyclist (and that's a bit assumption), that leaves 95% of incidents that were not the fault of cyclists.

So why on earth would you focus your attention now on the 5% instead of the 95%?

Because we're talking about the 5%, not the 95% which is already a steadily falling figure.

RainyDay wrote: »

And you reckon the important message from the video relates to the possible actions of the videographer (though you can't actually see what he did or didn't do), and not the large number of dangerous motor vehicles breaking the lights/law?

You can clearly see what they did, which was to start crossing as traffic was approaching. Traffic even had to stop before hitting them. And given the amount of times filmed at that one particular crossing, and the amount of times there were near misses, it's almost as if the videographer wanted to be hit.

check_six

Spook_ie wrote: »

Incorrect, there are SPECIFIC circumstances when turning left that place the obligation on traffic going straight to yield the RoW.

SI332/2012 specificly states

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

This law is relevant for bicycles overtaking stationary traffic and a vehicle that gets stuck half way through making a turn. I'm talking about the scenario where a vehicle swings across your lane as you are both travelling along, be that a bike going right or a car going left (or any combination of vehicles). The poster I replied to described this kind of scenario with a bike trying to cross in front of him.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Because we're talking about the 5%, not the 95% which is already a steadily falling figure.

So are cyclist road deaths, last year would appear to be a tragic but nonetheless statistical blip.

You can clearly see what they did, which was to start crossing as traffic was approaching. Traffic even had to stop before hitting them. And given the amount of times filmed at that one particular crossing, and the amount of times there were near misses, it's almost as if the videographer wanted to be hit.

I think most of the time the videographer waited until traffic had fully past, on the one or two times they walked out, the cars had nearly completely gone past, not sure what video you were watching. It is sad that Joe Public feels the need to highlight an issue which shoul dnot exist with a camera rather than just throwing up a red light camera, 30 days later you will find the number of light jumpers has dropped tremendously, next, identify the times of day where cyclists jump that light most, have stills from the camera and, being creatures of habit, pick up a large number of recurrent RLJers, do this on a few random mornings but do it down the road from the junction.

Within 3 months, RLJing at that junction will be reduced by 95%, the cost will have been covered through fines of motorists and cyclists. Job done.

Rinse and repeat.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

I think most of the time the videographer waited until traffic had fully past, on the one or two times they walked out, the cars had nearly completely gone past, not sure what video you were watching.

CramCycle wrote: »

It is sad that Joe Public feels the need to highlight an issue which shoul dnot exist with a camera rather than just throwing up a red light camera, 30 days later you will find the number of light jumpers has dropped tremendously, next, identify the times of day where cyclists jump that light most, have stills from the camera and, being creatures of habit, pick up a large number of recurrent RLJers, do this on a few random mornings but do it down the road from the junction.

I'd agree with red light cameras, but I don't agree with calling this guy "Joe Public". It's just some sad git with too much time on his hands acting passive aggressive at a set of lights. Like those cyclists who hide behind a helmet camera and selectively upload footage of driver error, even where there's been no accident. Even publishing people's reg numbers so they can give themselves a pat on the back... It's pathetic really. If a motorist did it to cyclists constantly you'd have cyclists arguing crap like "You don't see him posting the footage where he's speeding!".

MadDog76

rubadub wrote: »

Have you bothered to ask any gardai why they are not enforcing the law? I doubt they would tell you it's solely because its convenient.

I would hate to live in a society where every illegal act is chased after by the gardai. It would be an appalling waste of resources chasing down every 5 year old on their tricycle on a footpath, and pedestrians illegally crossing a totally empty road.

There is going to be €50 on the spot fines for cyclists at the end of the summer -motorists can expect longer car journeys because of this. There is talk of having traffic lights that allow cyclists to go first, further delaying motorists. The hate for cyclists is going to increase a lot more, because they are obeying the law. Expect a lot more to cycle on the roads rather than cycle on what are apparently cycletracks - as many are techinically footpaths due to incorrect signage.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rogue-cyclists-facing-50-fine-for-breaking-red-lights-31303040.html

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

Actually, I thought your question was rhetorical, but if you want an answer, that's fine. I thought the answer was fairly clear from the context.

I used real names because MadDog seemed to think there was something funny about 200 people being killed each year. Use of real names and real people just might persuade him to think twice.

I think it's hilarious that you bang out the same "200+" motorists line in every second post no matter what question you're asked or what topic is discussed!

It's your "go-to" answer ..........

Pinch Flat

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

What, even prosecuting 5 year old on tricycles? You'll probably find its a sensible interpretation of the law by the Gardai. They have zero appetite for prosecuting young children cycling on footpaths

MadDog76

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What, even prosecuting 5 year old on tricycles? You'll probably find its a sensible interpretation of the law by the Gardai. They have zero appetite for prosecuting young children cycling on footpaths

Typical diversion answer from a cyclist .......... how pathetically predictable. :rolleyes:

Pinch Flat

MadDog76 wrote: »

Typical diversion answer from a cyclist .......... how pathetically predictable. :rolleyes:

Not really. The baying mob were calling for social services and the Gardai to be called if children were cycling on footpaths. Some posters even suggested physically preventing children from passing, forcing them into the road

Anyway, fixed penalty notices are looming closer - have you considered how they track fare evaders on the rail and Luas system without ID cards? Because it's the same sort of scenario

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/rogue-cyclists-facing-50-fine-for-breaking-red-lights-31303040.html

Spook_ie

check_six wrote: »

This law is relevant for bicycles overtaking stationary traffic and a vehicle that gets stuck half way through making a turn. I'm talking about the scenario where a vehicle swings across your lane as you are both travelling along, be that a bike going right or a car going left (or any combination of vehicles). The poster I replied to described this kind of scenario with a bike trying to cross in front of him.

The law also specificly refers to slower moving traffic that a cyclist is overtaking on the left, if the traffic is in front and indicating left or ( as in the example quoted by pinchflat )
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347326,-6.424664,3a,75y,206.93h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshF6tCzl0VTEEhYG_4iCsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
in a left turn lane and is complying with the assumption that they have a reasonable expectation of completing the turn then the motor vehicle has the RoW.

check_six

Spook_ie wrote: »

The law also specificly refers to slower moving traffic that a cyclist is overtaking on the left, if the traffic is in front and indicating left or ( as in the example quoted by ) in a left turn lane and is complying with the assumption that they have a reasonable expectation of completing the turn then the motor vehicle has the RoW.

If you are in front and indicating left you also need to be able to complete the turn without hindering the person in the inside lane. You cannot simply be in front and indicating. As we discussed earlier (and I thought we'd all agreed on this) just putting out your hand (or indicating) and turning does not grant you right of way.

The part of the law you quoted is to cover instances where a vehicle starts a turn with ample time and space and ends up blocking the route of the bike track because they have stopped half way through the manoeuver.

ii) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

It is not carte blanche for someone to swing across a cyclist and claim that they had room to turn because they had their noses fractionally ahead of them.

_Kaiser_

Just saw on the news the proposals for on the spot fines for cyclists who break lights or cycle recklessly.

All I can say is it's about time! Allowing anyone with a Dublin Bikes account or Bike to Work Scheme to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability is madness. Next steps should be mandatory insurance - both to cover themselves and any 3rd party or damage caused in the event of an incident.

No doubt the pro-cycling crowd will be along to tell me this isn't fair/comparable/practical/would disincentivise cycling - answer there is tough! If you demand equal rights and space on the roads (or indeed more of it) then you should have equal responsibility (and liability) as other road users as well.

Spook_ie

check_six wrote: »

If you are in front and indicating left you also need to be able to complete the turn without hindering the person in the inside lane. You cannot simply be in front and indicating. As we discussed earlier (and I thought we'd all agreed on this) just putting out your hand (or indicating) and turning does not grant you right of way.

The part of the law you quoted is to cover instances where a vehicle starts a turn with ample time and space and ends up blocking the route of the bike track because they have stopped half way through the manoeuver.



It is not carte blanche for someone to swing across a cyclist and claim that they had room to turn because they had their noses fractionally ahead of them.

You what?

The part of the law you quoted is to cover instances where a vehicle starts a turn with ample time and space and ends up blocking the route of the bike track because they have stopped half way through the manoeuver.

Pinch Flat

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Just saw on the news the proposals for on the spot fines for cyclists who break lights or cycle recklessly.

All I can say is it's about time! Allowing anyone with a Dublin Bikes account or Bike to Work Scheme to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability is madness. Next steps should be mandatory insurance - both to cover themselves and any 3rd party or damage caused in the event of an incident.

No doubt the pro-cycling crowd will be along to tell me this isn't fair/comparable/practical/would disincentivise cycling - answer there is tough! If you demand equal rights and space on the roads (or indeed more of it) then you should have equal responsibility (and liability) as other road users as well.

You do realise a lot of cyclists are drivers? 70%-80% depending on what you read-and that 20000 cyclists already have voluntary insurance?

The pro-cycling crowd will not be on here complaining of its unfairness - on the contrary. The only slight gripe i have us that the fine is a tad on the high side compared to comparible motoring offences. On liability i would advocate strict liability for motorists in line with almost every other eu country but thats a moot point

RainyDay

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

All I can say is it's about time! Allowing anyone with a Dublin Bikes account or Bike to Work Scheme to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability is madness. Next steps should be mandatory insurance - both to cover themselves and any 3rd party or damage caused in the event of an incident.

How's that 'proper training' and 'accountability' and 'mandatory insurance' working out in terms of stopping motorists doing dangerous things like breaking traffic lights?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

Typical diversion answer from a cyclist .......... how pathetically predictable. :rolleyes:

So all cyclists act the same way now ? :rolleyes: careful or soon we'll be as untouchable as the traveling community !

People are bas.tards and some drive cars and some cycle bikes

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think it's hilarious that you bang out the same "200+" motorists line in every second post no matter what question you're asked or what topic is discussed!

It's your "go-to" answer ..........

Classy, so 200+ deaths a year is a big joke to you.

Pinch Flat

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

Someone might have posed this question to you before - do you make a habit of reporting errant motorists, hgv drivers, motorcyclists, bus drivers etc or just have an issue with cyclists?

MadDog76

roadrunner16 wrote: »

So all cyclists act the same way now ? :rolleyes: careful or soon we'll be as untouchable as the traveling community !

People are bas.tards and some drive cars and some cycle bikes

Not all cyclists no ........... just the ones that have a Boards.ie account it would seem.

_Kaiser_

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You do realise a lot of cyclists are drivers? 70%-80% depending on what you read-and that 20000 cyclists already have voluntary insurance?

Whether cyclists are drivers too is irrelevant. I'm not aware of any motor policy that covers an individual when using a push bike.

Voluntary insurance is a good thing for sure, but it needs to be mandatory both for their own protection and other road users (motorised, other cyclists and pedestrians alike)

RainyDay wrote: »

How's that 'proper training' and 'accountability' and 'mandatory insurance' working out in terms of stopping motorists doing dangerous things like breaking traffic lights?

Really? The best argument you can come up with is "I saw another boy do it so I should be able to do it too"?

Well in case it's not obvious... neither example is acceptable. The difference is that if a motorist is caught doing these things they can be held accountable and prosecuted

Your example highlights the problem of a lack of enforcement - not a lack of ability to do so.


[EDIT] Oh and having watched your video, many of the cars you are using as an example in your point had already entered the junction before the light went red - I think the real issue is the green to red sequence is very short for such a busy junction!

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

Classy, so 200+ deaths a year is a big joke to you.

Classy???
About as classy as actually naming real-life people (who's families may be reading your posts) who have tragically lost their lives on our roads in a vile attempt to justify your argument ......... disgusting.

MadDog76

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Someone might have posed this question to you before - do you make a habit of reporting errant motorists, hgv drivers, motorcyclists, bus drivers etc or just have an issue with cyclists?

I'd probably have a near-miss or encounter an a**hole motorist about 4/5 times in a year ............ whereas I have near-misses or encounter a**hole cyclists at least 4/5 times a day ......... unfortunately I can't report the cyclists as I have no way of identifying them.

Pinch Flat

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd probably have a near-miss or encounter an a**hole motorist about 4/5 times in a year ............ whereas I have near-misses or encounter a**hole cyclists at least 4/5 times a day ......... unfortunately I can't report the cyclists as I have no way of identifying them.

So, did you report the drivers? 4-5 times sounds very low btw - confirmation bias much?

Pinch Flat

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Whether cyclists are drivers too is irrelevant.

No it's not. The common perception amongst the motor centric is that cyclists are not trained to use the roads, which is not the case, ergo your comment

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

.....to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability.....

Do you get just as excited about the large proportion of unaccompanied provisional drivers - who have little or no training - using the roads? Or what about the 5% of drivers - about 100,000 - that drive about uninsured?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm not aware of any motor policy that covers an individual when using a push bike.

It's because there isn't any. The giveaway is in the name

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/insurance

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Voluntary insurance is a good thing for sure, but it needs to be mandatory both for their own protection and other road users (motorised, other cyclists and pedestrians alike)

Perhaps but we have mandatory insurance for motorists for a number of years now and I'm not sure it's reflected in what you're expecting from the equivalent in cycling insurance.

Cyclists will insure primarily themselves against bodily injury, next the bike and thirdly third parties - it's not taken out to cover them for the odd wing mirror being removed, although it does help

_Kaiser_

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No it's not. The common perception amongst the motor centric is that cyclists are not trained to use the roads, which is not the case.

Do you get just as excited about the large proportion of unaccompanied provisional drivers - who have no training - using the roads? Or what about the 5% of drivers - about 100,000 - that drive about uninsured?

For sure.. they should be removed from the roads as well. You seem to think that this is a motorist vs cyclist issue.. it's not. It's a law-abiding vs non-law abiding issue.

It's because there isn't any. The giveaway is on the name

Hence why your point about many(?) cyclists being motorists as well is just as irrelevant. Using the roads on a push bike is a very different scenario than as a motorist, and regardless you're assuming that many have had training in a car.. not a wise move surely before letting hoards of people out among busy traffic and heavy vehicles.

Perhaps but we have mandatory insurance for motorists for a number of years now and I'm not sure it's reflected in what you're expecting from the equivalent in cycling insurance.

Cyclists will insure primarily themselves against bodily injury, next the bike and thirdly third parties - it's not taken out to cover them for the odd wing mirror being removed, although it does help

Well if they expect to be able to use the roads on an equal footing to other road users, they should be covered accordingly. That wing mirror you refer to could cost a motorist a few hundred to fix depending on the model of the car.

More important though is that they are adequately covered for physical injury, or for any pedestrians/other cyclists they might run into.

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

Strange that the Garda thinks it is impossible, but thousands of cyclists have been prosecuted. http://irishcycle.com/2014/10/07/3200-irish-cyclists-summoned-to-court-in-ten-years/

The current system is a bit cumbersome, but cyclists are already held accountable for their actions on the roads, just like motorists.

smash wrote: »

Because human error.

It's not error. It is a lack of attention, a lack of control, a lack of giving a toss in many cases.

smash wrote: »

Because we're talking about the 5%, not the 95% which is already a steadily falling figure.

No, you're talking about the 5%, which is a fairly future approach if you are actually interested in saving lives at all. I'm focusing on the 95%, because that's where attention will save most lives.

smash wrote: »

You can clearly see what they did, which was to start crossing as traffic was approaching. Traffic even had to stop before hitting them. And given the amount of times filmed at that one particular crossing, and the amount of times there were near misses, it's almost as if the videographer wanted to be hit.

I am quite incredulous, that you see a pedestrian crossing with a 'green man', you see 'Traffic even had to stop before hitting them' - and your concern is with the pedestrian's behaviour. Amazing victim-blaming.

smash wrote: »

I'd agree with red light cameras, but I don't agree with calling this guy "Joe Public". It's just some sad git with too much time on his hands acting passive aggressive at a set of lights. Like those cyclists who hide behind a helmet camera and selectively upload footage of driver error, even where there's been no accident. Even publishing people's reg numbers so they can give themselves a pat on the back... It's pathetic really. If a motorist did it to cyclists constantly you'd have cyclists arguing crap like "You don't see him posting the footage where he's speeding!".

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Would you like to post a link to the video that you appeared in?

smash wrote: »

If a motorist did it to cyclists constantly you'd have cyclists arguing crap like "You don't see him posting the footage where he's speeding!".

And now you're criticising cyclists for how they might behave in a particular hypothetical scenario, though that doesn't seem to have actually happened. Paranoid much?