Cyclists and the law,is anyone else sick of them breaking it

Lumen

ted1 wrote: »

Is there really no limit? I would have thought that the limit applies to the road rather than specific vehicles

Yes, I am very sure about this.

PeadarCo

ted1 wrote:

Is there really no limit? I would have thought that the limit applies to the road rather than specific vehicles

Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Cyclists could still be done for dangerous driving/cycling where obviously excessive speed would come into consideration in deciding if the cyclists behavior was dangerous.

Macy0161

frozenfrozen wrote: »

what's wrong with motorbikes in bus lanes or filtering in cycle lanes? Or are you just flinging shit because one motorcyclist made a thread saying something about cyclists?

Both are illegal. So yes, if one group of road users is going to call out cyclists as if we're a homogeneous group and the only ones to break the law/ rules of the road, I think it's fair enough to call out the hypocrisy of that stance.

I don't particularly have a problem with bus lanes, but (from the car) I've witnessed some near missus with motorbikes in mandatory cycle lanes. I think that practice is dangerous.

frozenfrozen

Macy0161 wrote: »

if one group of road users is going to call out cyclists as if we're a homogeneous group

one guys thread where 50/50 replies have been "well I'm a motorcyclist AND a cyclist" and the other ones have not exactly been anti bike... except the first post which was done out of frustration from seeing a near accident caused by a cyclist breaking a red light...


don't think it counts as motorcyclists calling out cyclists.

Lumen

frozenfrozen wrote:

...the first post which was done out of frustration from seeing a near accident caused by a cyclist breaking a red light

Yes, and that would be a completely reasonable starting point were it not for the conflation of safety and law-abiding (in fact the thread title mentions nothing of safety at all, only rule breaking).

There's this comical blindness that we all have whereby we subconsciously justify our own rule breaking (e.g. speeding, not displaying road tax, using bus lanes, using noisy and polluting aftermarket exhausts, riding adventure bikes despite clearly not being on any kind of adventure) but don't recognise that other people are doing exactly the same with a different set of justifications we may or may not agree with.

Obviously it would be fairly rare (though not unheard of) for anyone to deliberately cause an accident so it's a reasonable assumption that the cyclists involved thought that they were perfectly safe breaking the red.

That's why we have rules, they're heuristics to help people go about their lives without having to constantly assess risks. But we don't like them because we think we know better. And we usually do. Except when we don't, and then bad stuff happens.

People are irrational.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Hey look at all you arguing on the internet whilst some of us are busy out riding bikes & having the craic ~ 'tis a lovely autumnal day out there lads

cadete

Lumen wrote: »

riding adventure bikes despite clearly not being on any kind of adventure.

Sounds like riding round Dublin with all these homicidal Kamikaze cyclists around might classify as an adventure

frozenfrozen

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, and that would be a completely reasonable starting point were it not for the conflation of safety and law-abiding (in fact the thread title mentions nothing of safety at all, only rule breaking).

There's this comical blindness that we all have whereby we subconsciously justify our own rule breaking (e.g. speeding, not displaying road tax, using bus lanes, using noisy and polluting aftermarket exhausts, riding adventure bikes despite clearly not being on any kind of adventure) but don't recognise that other people are doing exactly the same with a different set of justifications we may or may not agree with.

Obviously it would be fairly rare (though not unheard of) for anyone to deliberately cause an accident so it's a reasonable assumption that the cyclists involved thought that they were perfectly safe breaking the red.

That's why we have rules, they're heuristics to help people go about their lives without having to constantly assess risks. But we don't like them because we think we know better. And we usually do. Except when we don't, and then bad stuff happens.

People are irrational.

speak for yourself, I display road tax. lol

prunudo

cadete wrote: »

Sounds like riding round Dublin with all these homicidal "KAMIKAZE" cyclists around might classify as an adventure

Jesus, remember that lad, forum hasn't been the same since he disappeared :pac:

mrcheez

frozenfrozen wrote: »

speak for yourself, I display road tax. lol

I don't think "made up" tax discs will fly with Gardai.

TallGlass

Macy0161 wrote: »

I don't particularly have a problem with bus lanes, but (from the car) I've witnessed some near missus with motorbikes in mandatory cycle lanes. I think that practice is dangerous.

Sorry, but what is a mandatory cycle lane? There's no mandatory lane for cycling in the RTA. If your referring to a cycle lane as for example the one along the Clontarf road, then sorry but I have never ever seen a motorcycle riding on it!

I have however seen motorcyclists in cycle lanes, I don't get pissed off or anything like it, I just move out of the way when I can. It might be because I am a motorcyclist myself, even at that I don't go into the cycle lanes as I have had some near misses on my push bike in it, wouldn't like to chance trying to dodge something in the cycling lane on a 250/300kg bike so I just keep to the main stream.

Just while I am at it, is there anything in the RTA that puts a time limit on moving off from a red light? Like earlier I was waiting around 6/7 mins at a light, must have gone rouge, dysfunctional or something. But can I legally move off from it, provided the way is clear, giving way to traffic on right etc..

Muahahaha

Fian wrote: »

Mirrors on a bike are not terribly useful. However almost all cyclists certainly do lifesavers.

That is just simply not true and IMO cyclists not doing lifesavers is the biggest danger to their own safety. One thing I am extremely conscious of when on a motorbike commuting is one cyclist over taking another cyclist without even looking over their shoulder and moving into your path. Only last week I was coming down the Whitworth Road which has those speed bumps with gaps in the middle. I was almost level with a cyclist who at the last minute decides to swerve into the middle of the road as the left hand side was potholed. If he had of looked over his shoulder he would have clearly seen me but instead he just swerved with no worry for what was behind him.

I always give them a wide berth but the amount of cyclists I see not doing lifesavers is huge. Probably shouldnt be surprising really as I myself never knew of lifesavers until I took up motorbiking where it is a part of the training. When I cycle now II always do a lifesaver before moving road position but was never taught that when learning how to cycle as a nipper. Cyclists dont have that same training so it is no surprise many dont look over their shoulder.

mrcheez

Muahahaha wrote: »

That is just simply not true and IMO cyclists not doing lifesavers is the biggest danger to their own safety. One thing I am extremely conscious of when on a motorbike commuting is one cyclist over taking another cyclist without even looking over their shoulder and moving into your path. Only last week I was coming down the Whitworth Road which has those speed bumps with gaps in the middle. I was almost level with a cyclist who at the last minute decides to swerve into the middle of the road as the left hand side was potholed. If he had of looked over his shoulder he would have clearly seen me but instead he just swerved with no worry for what was behind him.

I always give them a wide berth but the amount of cyclists I see not doing lifesavers is huge. Probably shouldnt be surprising really as I myself never knew of lifesavers until I took up motorbiking where it is a part of the training. When I cycle now II always do a lifesaver before moving road position but was never taught that when learning how to cycle as a nipper. Cyclists dont have that same training so it is no surprise many dont look over their shoulder.

This is why you are supposed to give 1.5m berth when overtaking. Cyclists naturally assume motorcyclists/vehicles are obeying the law and allowing for this amount of space so they can assume they have 1.5m to overtake/avoid potholes etc

jive

mrcheez wrote: »

This is why you are supposed to give 1.5m berth when overtaking. Cyclists naturally assume motorcyclists/vehicles are obeying the law and allowing for this amount of space so they can assume they have 1.5m to overtake/avoid potholes etc

Exactly, why should the cyclist have to damage themselves and/or their bike because you've decided to squeeze by at <1.5m.

Lumen

TallGlass wrote: »

Sorry, but what is a mandatory cycle lane? There's no mandatory lane for cycling in the RTA.

"Mandatory cycle lane" means (in simple English) a cycle lane with a solid white line. The mandatory-ness is related to how mechanically propelled vehicles have to treat it.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012. wrote:

(5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

In case you're wondering what "traffic sign number RRM 022" is...

S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012. wrote:

14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—

(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,
...

This is fairly obvious without any signage - don't cross a solid white line unless you're entering or leaving a property or side road. Of course that also applies to bus lanes. :pac:

On the motorbike I use bus lanes and non-mandatory (dashed line) cycle lanes if they're not busy. I don't use mandatory cycle lanes because the combination of illegal and intimidating (to the cyclists) crosses my personal "don't be a dick" threshold.

prunudo

mrcheez wrote: »

This is why you are supposed to give 1.5m berth when overtaking. Cyclists naturally assume motorcyclists/vehicles are obeying the law and allowing for this amount of space so they can assume they have 1.5m to overtake/avoid potholes etc

Surely the 1.5m rule is for the open road, plenty of cycle lanes in around the city where it is impossible for a car to move 1.5m away from a bike lane.
Beside it's good practice for cyclists to do lifesavers regardless of what they are doing. It's called being aware of your surroundings which I believe many cyclists aren't, while they're on the road, especially the mamils who are in the 'zone' and more interested in a better strava time than what is happening around them.

Chuchote

jvan wrote: »

Surely the 1.5m rule is for the open road, plenty of cycle lanes in around the city where it is impossible for a car to move 1.5m away from a bike lane.
Beside it's good practice for cyclists to do lifesavers regardless of what they are doing. It's called being aware of your surroundings which I believe many cyclists aren't, while they're on the road, especially the mamils who are in the 'zone' and more interested in a better strava time than what is happening around them.

I'm at a disadvantage here; I don't know in what "doing a lifesaver" consists. Clarification please?

Yes, it depends, but not on the open road, in the sense of being out in t'country, like, boy.

If someone is cycling along a line of stopped traffic, obviously neither cyclist nor drivers can leave 1.5m, or needs to; the only thing that's necessary is for the cyclist to avoid scraping the cars or damaging their mirrors, and the drivers to avoid opening the door in the cyclist's face, which can severely damage a cyclist even at very slow speeds. (A good way to avoid this is the "Dutch reach", where you open the door with the opposite hand, which reminds you to look behind; this is easy unless you're fat.)

But as soon as traffic is moving, it's necessary to keep 1.5m from cyclists. A cyclist can't go in a straight line, because the road surface provides obstacles like seams and potholes, slidey manhole covers, glass, etc, so there's a certain amount of weaving-in-and-out room needed.

This will be far less so when proper separated cycleways are built, since their surface suffers uncountably less wear, but then the 1.5m caution won't be needed in that circumstance anyway.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

I'm at a disadvantage here; I don't know in what "doing a lifesaver" consists. Clarification please?

Looking over your shoulder before changing road position.

Chuchote wrote: »

But as soon as traffic is moving, it's necessary to keep 1.5m from cyclists

Despite your opinion that it is necessary, if this was strictly observed 100% then it would be extremely difficult to move around Dublin given the current design of our roads.

Regardless, swerving out of a narrow cycle lane into another narrow lane without indicating or looking over one's shoulder is borderline suicidal. If you want more space, get out of the cycle lane.

prunudo

A lifesaver is looking over your shoulder (either right or left) before changing direction. Motorcyclists are thought to do them but as a driver it's also good practice as you check your blind spots.
What I was referring to and I think Mauhahaha too was that if you're driving along, overtaking a line of cyclists in a cycle lane, at 1.5m distance, ive lost count of the amount of times another cyclist decides to overtake a 'slower bike' without looking over their shoulder and into the normal traffic lane with not a care in the world.

Chuchote

jvan wrote: »

A lifesaver is looking over your shoulder (either right or left) before changing direction. Motorcyclists are thought to do them but as a driver it's also good practice as you check your blind spots.
What I was referring to and I think Mauhahaha too was that if you're driving along, overtaking a line of cyclists in a cycle lane, at 1.5m distance, ive lost count of the amount of times another cyclist decides to overtake a 'slower bike' without looking over their shoulder and into the normal traffic lane with not a care in the world.

The world is rich in Darwin's examples, piloting all kinds of vehicles from feet to wheels to caterpillar tracks.

prunudo

Chuchote wrote: »

The world is rich in Darwin's examples, piloting all kinds of vehicles from feet to wheels to caterpillar tracks.

Yes it is, but as cyclists are some of the most vulnerable road users and quick enough to jump up and down when they feel threatened I would have thought something as simple as a lifesaver would make sense.

Chuchote

jvan wrote: »

Yes it is, but as cyclists are some of the most vulnerable road users and quick enough to jump up and down when they feel threatened I would have thought something as simple as a lifesaver would make sense.

Wouldn't be a bad idea for the RSA and Gardaí to add training in this to their kindly giving-out of hi-viz and little blinky lights; they could block off a small road like one of the Temple Bar side streets and do it. A lot of new cyclists don't actually know how to look over the shoulder without swerving out.

mrcheez

jvan wrote: »

A lifesaver is looking over your shoulder (either right or left) before changing direction. Motorcyclists are thought to do them but as a driver it's also good practice as you check your blind spots.
What I was referring to and I think Mauhahaha too was that if you're driving along, overtaking a line of cyclists in a cycle lane, at 1.5m distance, ive lost count of the amount of times another cyclist decides to overtake a 'slower bike' without looking over their shoulder and into the normal traffic lane with not a care in the world.

It's not always possible to have time to look over your shoulder when you are suddenly confronted with a pothole (especially if it's raining and less visible until the last moment) since you need to keep your eyes ahead to ensure you can handle the danger in front. Turning your head around will result in a loss of balance or collision.

Hence the reason drivers are told "Expect the Unexpected" in the RSA ad campaign and are instructed to "always provide for 1.5m space" for just such circumstances.

When I drive my car, and encounter a cyclist, I always wait until I have 1.5m space before I overtake, even if it holds up traffic behind me. All because I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a narrow overtake (and often undertakes) by cars.

Cycling has made me a far better driver... and a hell of a lot calmer.

prunudo

"Turning your head around will result in a loss of balance or collision"

If this is the case I think any cyclist that finds it a challenge should stick to staying on the sofa.

Chuchote

jvan wrote: »

"Turning your head around will result in a loss of balance or collision"

If this is the case I think any cyclist that finds it a challenge should stick to staying on the sofa.

Try it yourself before patronising.

prunudo

Chuchote wrote: »

Try it yourself before patronising.

I do, and I've yet to fall over in a heap, I was genuinely concerned that looking over your shoulder might be a struggle to other 2 wheeled road users.

Chuchote

jvan wrote: »

I do, and I've yet to fall over in a heap, I was genuinely concerned that looking over your shoulder might be a struggle to other 2 wheeled road users.

There are factors. For instance, I'm very short-sighted (think Mr Magoo) and so I have to turn my head around like an owl, as there's a gap where there's no glasses to look through unless I turn it very far. Doing this is difficult without pulling the handlebars a bit to the right.

I've mastered the quick glance over the shoulder, but it isn't easy and it took a while to learn.

And I've seen other go to look over the shoulder and wobble; sometimes they wobble because when they whip their head back around a pothole has appeared in front of them and they have to avoid it.

mrcheez

jvan wrote: »

"Turning your head around will result in a loss of balance or collision"

If this is the case I think any cyclist that finds it a challenge should stick to staying on the sofa.

So I approach a pothole and instead of looking straight ahead to navigate around it, I look over my shoulder while magically navigating around the pothole using the eyes to the side of my head?

Nice trick.

ED E

Chuchote wrote: »

There are factors. For instance, I'm very short-sighted (think Mr Magoo) and so I have to turn my head around like an owl, as there's a gap where there's no glasses to look through unless I turn it very far. Doing this is difficult without pulling the handlebars a bit to the right.

I've mastered the quick glance over the shoulder, but it isn't easy and it took a while to learn.

And I've seen other go to look over the shoulder and wobble; sometimes they wobble because when they whip their head back around a pothole has appeared in front of them and they have to avoid it.

A family member is in a similar circumstance with a damaged neck, has to rotate in his seat to reverse.

If you've such a limitation its in my opinion irresponsible for you to go out on public roads without wing mirrors.

mrcheez

ED E wrote: »

If you've such a limitation its in my opinion irresponsible for you to go out on public roads without wing mirrors.

The responsibility lies with people coming up from behind that have to give 1.5m berth. If there's a collision, they are to blame. Simples.