Cyclists should do a theory test!

dubscottie

papu wrote: »

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

Prove it.. How do you know that someone was not killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

A lot of drivers in Dublin need to be made to watch this video because they can't seem to follow the rules of the road;

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

You attacked me as a person, instead of attacking my post. That's a personal attack. Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for defending it.

You are aware (if you knew anything about the road traffic act) in most cases the cars were right to go through..

Slamming on the anchors is idiotic and dangerous in that situation. Its covered in the road traffic act.

I think that the time between light changes is too short however.. 1min in on the video and I see the first "true" red light jumper. White van man.

Your should know amber means prepare to stop (if safe to do so) and red means stop..

But I know cyclists have problems with the basics of red = stop, green man = go for walkers.

Why did DDC waste money on putting the little green and red bike traffic lights at junctions when cyclists seen incapable of understanding them?

Yes mandatory theory test for cyclists. At age 14. No test, no bike.

sdanseo

I'd hazard a guess that more of the stuff cyclists do wrong in traffic is stuff they know they shouldn't do, or do intentionally. It's very hard to cut in front of a car, run a red light or plough through a pedestrian crossing without realising you're doing it.

Motorists who drive dangerously are also in this category, but careless motoring is harder to define because people do it without realising how much of an idiot they're being. Lane hogging for example - I've politely flashed the lights at drivers for this to be met with confused, inexplicable zombie faces because they simply don't understand they're doing anything wrong. I don't think there's as many situations where a cyclist has this excuse, unless perhaps they're just under the impression that because they don't have an engine they're just not dangerous.

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware (if you knew anything about the road traffic act) in most cases the cars were right to go through..

Slamming on the anchors is idiotic and dangerous in that situation. Its covered in the road traffic act.

I think that the time between light changes is too short however.. 1min in on the video and I see the first "true" red light jumper. White van man.

Your should know amber means prepare to stop (if safe to do so) and red means stop.........

You're not the first person here to justify red light breaking for the cars in that clip.

Be interested to see what stance a Garda would take. I'm sure he / she would be all ears :rolleyes:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/we-write-about-cars-jumping-lights-in-dublin-then-this-happens-at-the-same-lights/

dubscottie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You're not the first person here to justify red light breaking for the cars in that clip.

Be interested to see what stance a Garda would take. I'm sure he / she would be all ears :rolleyes:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/we-write-about-cars-jumping-lights-in-dublin-then-this-happens-at-the-same-lights/

So.. No linky.. Got something for laser eye stuff..

Even if the link did work.. Whataboutry..

What is the mindset in cyclists that they think they are above the law??

Once again you go an about cars etc..

I can do what about stuff too..

What about the 90% of cyclists that think a green man is a signal for them to go..

What about that..

Answer on a postcard as you don't seem to have one here

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

So.. No linky.. Got something for laser eye stuff..

Even if the link did work.. Whataboutry..

What is the mindset in cyclists that they think they are above the law??

Once again you go an about cars etc..

I can do what about stuff too..

What about the 90% of cyclists that think a green man is a signal for them to go..

What about that..

Answer on a postcard as you don't seem to have one here

A cyclist should never break a light. Some do, some don't. Some cars break lights, some don't.

As I said motorists will try explain away breaking red lights. I had someone else on another social media platform try to explain away drink driving, which he saw as less of an issue that red light breaking for cyclists. 150 drivers a week are caught drink driving. I would suspect more that 150 cyclists a week (or even a day) break reds. But the consequence is at each end of the spectrum.

I would like to see your link about the 90% of cyclists who see a green man as a signal to go - some do, some don't.

There's situations where cyclists and motorists should be allowed beak lights - Idaho stops, filter left or right on red - these would help traffic flow and cut out these arguments. But at the moment all vehicles must stop on red. Some do, some don't.

RainyDay

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware (if you knew anything about the road traffic act) in most cases the cars were right to go through..

Slamming on the anchors is idiotic and dangerous in that situation. Its covered in the road traffic act.

I think that the time between light changes is too short however.. 1min in on the video and I see the first "true" red light jumper. White van man.

Your should know amber means prepare to stop (if safe to do so) and red means stop..

I'm not sure if it's funny or sad that you're prepared to preach while being so fundamentally wrong. Amber does not mean 'prepare to stop'. It means 'stop if it safe to stop' - a distinct difference;

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/traffic-lights-and-signals/traffic-lights.html

If you need to 'drop the anchors' in urban traffic, you're driving way too fast. It's like you're justifying the amber/red coming as a total surprise to these drivers. Newsflash - green lights switch, it's going to happen - just a matter of time. Drivers need to be ready, and that's the major purpose of the amber light - to prepare you for red.

CramCycle

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Apparently the time of parent I am, one who wants my kids to be healthy and not reliant on others as he grows up. What a sh1t parent I am.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

. Amber does not mean 'prepare to stop'. It means 'stop if it safe to stop' - a distinct difference;

For anyone who has done the driving test will know, any light that is green should be approached with the possibility that it will change at any time.

Driving 101, unless it flicks to amber just as you enter, maybe a small fraction before to account for reaction times, or as you are on the junction (ie you will stop in the junction if you did) you should be able to stop before the white line.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

For anyone who has done the driving test will know, any light that is green should be approached with the possibility that it will change at any time.

Driving 101, unless it flicks to amber just as you enter, maybe a small fraction before to account for reaction times, or as you are on the junction (ie you will stop in the junction if you did) you should be able to stop before the white line.

Indeed, and more again - it's not just the possibility, it's the probability, in fact the absolute certainty that it is going to change to amber, it's just a matter of time. And these guys then use it as an excuse, as it if comes as a total surprise.

Most of those drivers go though that junction every day. They know the light sequence well, and have a good idea for how long it takes. But they have to push, push, push, ignore the amber, and treat the red as an advisory to start thinking about stopping. Which takes time away from the traffic coming the other direction, so they do exactly the same when they get their red, which takes time away from the original traffic direction etc etc.

It's pointless, senseless and dangerous.

Beasty

dubscottie wrote: »

Prove it.. How do you know that someone was not killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

Yeah - throwing in such statements without evidence takes this thread nowhere. I presume you could make an educated guess at how many deaths were caused by cyclists?

dubscottie wrote: »

What about the 90% of cyclists that think a green man is a signal for them to go..

Source?

Spook_ie

dubscottie wrote: »

So.. No linky.. Got something for laser eye stuff..

Even if the link did work.. Whataboutry..

What is the mindset in cyclists that they think they are above the law??

Once again you go an about cars etc..

I can do what about stuff too..

What about the 90% of cyclists that think a green man is a signal for them to go..

What about that..

Answer on a postcard as you don't seem to have one here

Ah here, no need to exaggerate its only 66%
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-cyclists-dont-stop-at-red-lights-29436118.html

SpaceTime

I was entering the N40, Cork South Ring at a merge and some guy just cycled straight across the on ramp as I was coming to the bottom of it.

I realise I have to yield to oncoming traffic and merge, but it's just so dangerous to do that. I had to slam on and nearly had the car behind me go into the back of me.

Cycles should absolutely not be on roads like that they're just too slow moving and cause chaos at merges.

At times I wonder if we actually have rules of the road in Ireland. I don't know anywhere else in Europe where you'd have cyclists in the hard shoulder of what is basically a busy DC/motorway like road.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ah here, no need to exaggerate its only 66%
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-cyclists-dont-stop-at-red-lights-29436118.html

Be great if they counted all road users for balance. The only reason drivers don't break red lights more often if the size of the vehicles - is easier to squeeze 5 bikes through a set of lights than 5 cars.

That's not to say you'll have the latter category of road user having a crack - the top of bridge street where is meets high street in Dublin in laughable in the morning - 2 lanes of traffic streaming through in pairs, 5 or 6 cars not unusual

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

I was entering the N40, Cork South Ring at a merge and some guy just cycled straight across the on ramp as I was coming to the bottom of it.

I realise I have to yield to oncoming traffic and merge, but it's just so dangerous to do that. I had to slam on and nearly had the car behind me go into the back of me.

Cycles should absolutely not be on roads like that they're just too slow moving and cause chaos at merges.

At times I wonder if we actually have rules of the road in Ireland. I don't know anywhere else in Europe where you'd have cyclists in the hard shoulder of what is basically a busy DC/motorway like road.

There is nothing in road traffic law that requires a driver to drive at or close to the speed limit.

Your speed should be appropriate to the road and it's condition and take account of the fact that other road users - pedestrians, cyclists, tractors etc - may also be entitled to use that road.

I don't know anywhere else in Europe where drivers see speed limits as targets.

rubadub

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Many insist that their children illegal cycle on paths instead. I wonder what is going to happen to children breaking the law when these fines come in? will parents be paying the fines? Bikes confiscated?

I see plenty of teenagers racing around housing estates on footpaths.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ah here, no need to exaggerate its only 66%
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-cyclists-dont-stop-at-red-lights-29436118.html

maybe it was a pedestrian figure he saw for 90%, god help the poor bastard trying to count the amount of pedestrians illegally crossing the road at that same junction in 20mins. They could make a fortune if they were to fine them.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html

Majority of people want fines imposed for jaywalking

17/06/2014
The AA asked almost six thousand people if they believe that pedestrians should be held to the same road safety standards as drivers and two-thirds of people agreed that they should.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

There is nothing in road traffic law that requires a driver to drive at or close to the speed limit.

Your speed should be appropriate to the road and it's condition and take account of the fact that other road users - pedestrians, cyclists, tractors etc - may also be entitled to use that road.

I don't know anywhere else in Europe where drivers see speed limits as targets.

You've driven elsewhere in Europe then? It'd be fairly unusual to drive at anything lower than the speed limit in free flowing traffic and in many countries there are minimum speeds on these kinds of roads.

I don't know anywhere else in Europe where cyclists use what are basically urban motorways.

It's going to get someone killed as drivers cannot adapt to their speed.

You can't merge onto a DC or motorway at slow speed, it's neither safe nor possible as entering traffic is trying to match the 1st lane of traffic's speed.

You don't expect a slow moving vehicle to suddenly come up the hard shoulder and across the junction at an entirely different speed.


The issue with this is the cycles came 'out of nowhere' and moved right across the on-ramp at slow speed from a blind spot in the hard shoulder. That's not where you expect 'traffic' to be coming from. He wasn't cycling in a traffic lane, he was using a hard shoulder (not a traffic lane) as a cycle lane (which it isn't).

I get totally fed up with this attitude to be honest.

If you cannot see that cycling down a hard shoulder on a busy DC and crossing merging lanes at weird spots where drivers don't expect to see you is potentially leathally dangerous, you shouldn't be on the road.

The attitude I'm getting all the time on some of these forums is "I'm technically correct"

You can be "Technically correct" and "technically dead" very easily too.

Motorways and HQ DCs need to be able to use merges and other things which are just not safe to use if you've got pedestrians, cyclists, horses, or anything else wandering across junctions.

No traffic should be driving across junctions from the hard shoulder, including cars.

How the hell are you supposed to merge with a 120km/h road without accelerating to the speed of the traffic?!

Spook_ie

rubadub wrote: »

Many insist that their children illegal cycle on paths instead. I wonder what is going to happen to children breaking the law when these fines come in? will parents be paying the fines? Bikes confiscated?

I see plenty of teenagers racing around housing estates on footpaths.



maybe it was a pedestrian figure he saw for 90%, god help the poor bastard trying to count the amount of pedestrians illegally crossing the road at that same junction in 20mins. They could make a fortune if they were to fine them.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html

Can't help but wonder if they are the same two thirds

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

I don't know anywhere else in Europe where cyclists use what are basically urban motorways.

It's going to get someone killed as drivers cannot adapt to their speed.

You can't merge onto a DC or motorway at slow speed, it's neither safe nor possible as entering traffic is trying to match the 1st lane of traffic's speed.

You don't expect a slow moving vehicle to suddenly come up the hard shoulder and across the junction at an entirely different speed.


The issue with this is the cycles came 'out of nowhere' and moved right across the on-ramp at slow speed from a blind spot in the hard shoulder. That's not where you expect 'traffic' to be coming from. He wasn't cycling in a traffic lane, he was using a hard shoulder (not a traffic lane) as a cycle lane (which it isn't).

I get totally fed up with this attitude to be honest.

If you cannot see that cycling down a hard shoulder on a busy DC and crossing merging lanes at weird spots where drivers don't expect to see you is potentially leathally dangerous, you shouldn't be on the road.

The attitude I'm getting all the time on some of these forums is "I'm technically correct"

You can be "Technically correct" and "technically dead" very easily too.

Motorways and HQ DCs need to be able to use merges and other things which are just not safe to use if you've got pedestrians, cyclists, horses, or anything else wandering across junctions.

No traffic should be driving across junctions from the hard shoulder, including cars.

How the hell are you supposed to merge with a 120km/h road without accelerating to the speed of the traffic?!

N roads are N roads they are not motorways - urban or otherwise.

The speed limit on them is 100 km/hr - the N40 limit is 100km/hr is it not?

120km/hr is for motorways and cyclists are prohibited from those roads.

If you need to merge with fast moving traffic - take your time, and wait your turn and time your merge accordingly - you have no right of way or precedence over any other road user.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

N roads are N roads they are not motorways - urban or otherwise.

The speed limit on them is 100 km/hr - the N40 limit is 100km/hr is it not?

120km/hr is for motorways and cyclists are prohibited from those roads.

If you need to merge with fast moving traffic - take your time, and wait your turn and time your merge accordingly - you have no right of way or precedence over any other road user.

On this section the speed limit on the N40 is 120km/h not 100.

There are a few areas of the N40 and the N25 around Cork that are 120km/h and built to motorway spec even though they're classified as N roads.

Grand so, I'll just stop the car, put on my indicator and turn out as if it's a non-merge then as there's a small risk of an invisible cyclist coming along at about 20km/h...

That's going to work very well.

How exactly can you 'take your time' merging with fast moving traffic?
That's a self-contradicting sentence. You have to get up to speed with the lane of traffic and merge.

You do not expect a cyclist to suddenly cycle straight across the merging junction in the hard shoulder which is NOT a lane.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

On this section the speed limit on the N40 is 120km/h not 100.

Which section? I drive it regularly.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Which section? I drive it regularly.

You obviously don't read the signs then!

The sections from Bishopstown towards Ballincollig (still N40) is 120km/h

The other 120km/h section is from Little Island to the end of the Carrigtwohil Bypass on the N25 i.e. the section that's built to high spec, not the Midleton DC which is most definitely 100km/h with poorly laid out 1970s junctions.

The situation with cyclists using the hard shoulder of a de facto motorway as if it's a bike lane and just sailing across merging junctions is suicidal. I don't really think there's any other way to describe it.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

You obviously don't read the signs then!

The sections from Bishopstown towards Ballincollig (still N40) is 120km/h

The other 120km/h section is from Little Island to the end of the Carrigtwohil Bypass on the N25 i.e. the section that's built to high spec, not the Midleton DC which is most definitely 100km/h with poorly laid out 1970s junctions.

Maybe, but the point still stands, - it's an N road, cyclists can use it, all road users on it should exercise due care when they do.

As they say, it's a limit not a target.

Edit: the fact N roads are permitted to be used by cyclists would no doubt be confirmed in any theory test

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe, but the point still stands, - it's an N road, cyclists can use it, all road users on it should exercise due care when they do.

As they say, it's a limit not a target.

Right, I'm not going to win this argument so there's point in even trying.

Welcome to Ireland : Please feel free to cycle or ride your horse down the motorway, preferably the in the opposite direction to traffic while you're at it.

Tractors on the motorway are perfectly fine here too, which is pretty bizarre by any standards.

Don't bother using indicators, don't bother with lane discipline, sure just drive along at 40km/h in the overtaking lane (encountered this on the M7 the other day).

No enforcement of anything.

It's no wonder people make a mockery of Irish attitudes at times.

The "ah sure it's grand" thing is taken way too far.

mvt

It's illegal (& nuts) to cycle on a motorway- don't think any cyclist will disagree.

Have often cycled on that 120k stretch of N25- its fine if a tad noisy.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

Right, I'm not going to win this argument so there's point in even trying.

Welcome to Ireland : Please feel free to cycle or ride your horse down the motorway, preferably the in the opposite direction to traffic while you're at it.

Tractors on the motorway are perfectly fine here too, which is pretty bizarre by any standards.

Don't bother using indicators, don't bother with lane discipline, sure just drive along at 40km/h in the overtaking lane (encountered this on the M7 the other day).

No enforcement of anything.

It's no wonder people make a mockery of Irish attitudes at times.

The "ah sure it's grand" thing is taken way too far.

No one is talking about cycling on motorways - that's clearly illegal.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

No one is talking about cycling on motorways - that's clearly illegal.

It shouldn't be legal on those 120km/h stretches either though. For all intents and purposes they are motorway.

I can't see how it's any more dangerous / illegal to cycle on the M8 at 100km/h limit at Glanmire to the N25 at 120km/h ...

Other than the colour of the road signs, there's absolutely no difference between those two roads' layouts or driver behaviour.

The N40 is actually arguably far more dangerous as it's got all sorts of weird junctions like the M50 (which is illegal to cycle on) and there are lots of alternative non-dangerous routes.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

It shouldn't be legal on those 120km/h stretches either though. For all intents and purposes they are motorway.

I can't see how it's any more dangerous / illegal to cycle on the M8 at 100km/h limit at Glanmire to the N25 at 120km/h ...

Other than the colour of the road signs, there's absolutely no difference between those two roads' layouts or driver behaviour.

The N40 is actually arguably far more dangerous as it's got all sorts of weird junctions like the M50 (which is illegal to cycle on) and there are lots of alternative non-dangerous routes.

Well, it is legal and they're not motorways because the junctions are not grade separated.

The roads are not inherently unsafe - it's drivers that make them unsafe.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, it is legal and they're not motorways because the junctions are not grade separated.

The roads are not inherently unsafe - it's drivers that make them unsafe.

They absolutely are grade separated.

There's no difference in the junction design on the M8 and the 120km/h sections on those roads. In fact, some of the junctions on the N25 are far better grade separated with much longer run ins and clearer views than many of the junctions on the motorways.

Some of the junctions up on the M18 at Ennis are unbelievably bad and would hardly even comply with motorway standards, yet they're somehow M-roads.

The junctions would also be far better on the N25 and the Ballincollig Bypass N40 than much of the M50's setups.

The reason for not M-classifying those roads was 1) cost of replacing signage and 2) they didn't want to exclude L-drivers and other vehicles from using them.

Of the dual carriageways around Cork the only seriously dodgy ones for junctions are the Midleton Bypass and the South Link (City to Kinsale Road roundabout) which has yield-type junctions at a few of the on-ramps which are pretty dangerous. I actually think that road needs a slower speed limit, especially in-bound 100km/h is too fast for most of it.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

They absolutely are grade separated.

There's no difference in the junction design on the M8 and the 120km/h sections on those roads. In fact, some of the junctions on the N25 are far better grade separated with much longer run ins and clearer views than many of the junctions on the motorways.

Some of the junctions up on the M18 at Ennis are unbelievably bad and would hardly even comply with motorway standards, yet they're somehow M-roads.

The reason for not M-classifying those roads was 1) cost of replacing signage and 2) they didn't want to exclude L-drivers and other vehicles from using them.

Of the dual carriageways around Cork the only seriously dodgy ones for junctions are the Midleton Bypass and the South Link (City to Kinsale Road roundabout) which has yield-type junctions at a few of the on-ramps which are pretty dangerous. I actually think that road needs a slower speed limit, especially in-bound 100km/h is too fast for most of it.

Should be easy enough to get a Motorway Order signed off then

Anyway, this thread is about theory tests for cyclists.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Should be easy enough to get a Motorway Order signed off then

Anyway, this thread is about theory tests for cyclists.

Well, unless someone wants to cough up tens of millions for replacing intense numbers of green signs with blue ones, I can't see it happening.

It is relevant to cycling as there are most definitely issues with cycling on these kinds of roads and it does need to be regulated.

I've seen cyclists on the M8 and also in the Jack Lynch Tunnel a few times which is absolutely nuts.

wtlltw

I think if drivers, cyclists, pedestrians were more alert to their surroundings things would be a lot better and less stressful. Had an early start this morning and every crazy mofo was out today lol!! Forget theory test, basic common sense was missing today

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well, unless someone wants to cough up tens of millions for replacing intense numbers of green signs with blue ones, I can't see it happening.

It is relevant to cycling as there are most definitely issues with cycling on these kinds of roads and it does need to be regulated.

I've seen cyclists on the M8 and also in the Jack Lynch Tunnel a few times which is absolutely nuts.

Tens of millions for signage !!??!

RainyDay

SpaceTime wrote: »

Right, I'm not going to win this argument so there's point in even trying.

Welcome to Ireland : Please feel free to cycle or ride your horse down the motorway, preferably the in the opposite direction to traffic while you're at it.

Cycling on a motorway is madness. Any cyclist who tries this should be stopped and charged. Anyone who sees a cyclist on a motorway should report it to 999.

But just the keep it in context, the vast majority of the danger involved is to the cyclist themselves. One drunk cyclist got killed on the M1 last year, and while I'm sure this was difficult and traumatic for the driver, there was no permanent injury involved. While there a possibility that the appearance of the cyclist on a motorway could distract a driver, or other freak scenario could arise, these are fairly unlikely. The vast majority of the risk is to the cyclist.

While motorists kill about 200 people each year, for a range of reasons.

dubscottie wrote: »

But not the single cause. I know of 2 people that died on the roads.

One came off a motorbike having hit melted tar and a car driver that hit black ice.. Both motorists, but was it there fault? What would you say if it had been cyclists..

It would have been the councils fault etc etc...

I came off my bike on ice a few years back. I didn't and I don't blame the council. It was purely my own fault. Where specifically have you seen cyclists blaming the council for falls on black ice?

dubscottie wrote: »

Prove it.. How do you know that someone was not killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

This is a poor attempt at one of those 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' kind of questions - an attempt to slur and defame others other the guise of asking a question.

So given that road incidents are widely reported at the time, and when a coroner's inquest happened, perhaps you could come up with case where someone was killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

papu

dubscottie wrote: »

Prove it.. How do you know that someone was not killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

Just because someone was avoiding a cyclist doesn't make it the cyclists fault... Many times impatient motorists take risks overtaking cyclists when its unsafe to do so. If this causes an accident you would say its the cyclists fault?

jimgoose

Grade-separated junctions have fcuk-all to do with it. Motorway status has to do with 100 mph safe cruising speed. This incorporates curve rates, access-ramp lengths and a couple of other things.

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Grade-separated junctions have fcuk-all to do with it. Motorway status has to do with 100 mph safe cruising speed. This incorporates curve rates, access-ramp lengths and a couple of other things.

:eek:

jimgoose

Close your mouth and pedal harder.

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Close your mouth and pedal harder.

You really think 100 mph is a safe cruising speed?

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

You really think 100 mph is a safe cruising speed?

I know it's a safe cruising speed. Depending on where you are.

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Grade-separated junctions have fcuk-all to do with it. Motorway status has to do with 100 mph safe cruising speed. This incorporates curve rates, access-ramp lengths and a couple of other things.

http://www.irishmotorwayinfo.com/inex/roads/misc/standards.html

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

I know it's a safe cruising speed. Depending on where you are.

On what stretch of road in this country is it even permissible to do 100 mph?

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

On what stretch of road in this country is it even permissible to do 100 mph?

100 mph is illegal, obviously. Dog-With-Mallet-Up-Hole knows that.

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

100 mph is illegal, obviously. Dog-With-Mallet-Up-Hole knows that.

Sounds like it's not cyclists who need to be taking theory tests

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like it's not cyclists who need to be taking theory tests

Sound's like some peeple need 25 years, a million miles of road, and some real power before they talk through their holes.

Pinch Flat

jimgoose wrote: »

Sound's like some peeple need 25 years, a million miles of road, and some real power before they talk through their holes.

What's always interesting in these debates is cyclists - look at them two abreast breaking red lights holy mother of god. And 2 abreast and not even a theory test between them.

Earlier in the thread we had someone justify red light breaking in a car and now someone advocating travelling at 25% over the legal speed limit.

I'm not doubting your driving skills or horse power on tap - reading the motoring thread it seems to be encouraged and even a badge of honour how fast some claim to travel on our road network - but these are clearly illegal yet the cyclist is being held up as the pariah on the roads. An interesting insight into the car centric minds

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Tens of millions for signage !!??!

For 30 brand new gantry signs, easily 10m

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

For 30 brand new gantry signs, easily 10m

It's about €50k for a gantry sign - so more like €1.5m, not 10.

jimgoose

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What's always interesting in these debates is cyclists - look at them two abreast breaking red lights holy mother of god. And 2 abreast and not even a theory test between them.

Earlier in the thread we had someone justify red light breaking in a car and now someone advocating travelling at 25% over the legal speed limit.

I'm not doubting your driving skills or horse power on tap - reading the motoring thread it seems to be encouraged and even a badge of honour how fast some claim to travel on our road network - but these are clearly illegal yet the cyclist is being held up as the pariah on the roads. An interesting insight into the car centric minds

I would never in a mad fit advocate or practice breaking traffic lights, or endangering two-abreast cyclists - there's a good reason for cycling two-abreast. Regarding speeding however, my carry-on on a motorcycle would quite horrify you.

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

Cycling on a motorway is madness. Any cyclist who tries this should be stopped and charged. Anyone who sees a cyclist on a motorway should report it to 999.

But just the keep it in context, the vast majority of the danger involved is to the cyclist themselves. One drunk cyclist got killed on the M1 last year, and while I'm sure this was difficult and traumatic for the driver, there was no permanent injury involved. While there a possibility that the appearance of the cyclist on a motorway could distract a driver, or other freak scenario could arise, these are fairly unlikely. The vast majority of the risk is to the cyclist.

While motorists kill about 200 people each year, for a range of reasons.

I came off my bike on ice a few years back. I didn't and I don't blame the council. It was purely my own fault. Where specifically have you seen cyclists blaming the council for falls on black ice?


This is a poor attempt at one of those 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' kind of questions - an attempt to slur and defame others other the guise of asking a question.

So given that road incidents are widely reported at the time, and when a coroner's inquest happened, perhaps you could come up with case where someone was killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

Again with the motorists kill 200+ each year. As for blaming the council.. You should look at the posts on another forum here.. "Came of the bike, who do I sue" threads. Never the cyclists fault.

I asked you to prove that the 200+ deaths on the roads are all the result of motorists. Still waiting.. You are making the claim again and again so back it up with proof.

The rules of the road are not the law.. The Road Traffic Act is.