Calling out fellow cyclists for illegal or dangerous behavior

tomasrojo

AulWan wrote: »

Ah, but I'd bet your attitude would be different if a car hit your bike and caused €400 worth of damage.

But thanks, you've just given me a perfect display of the kind of hypocritical attitude I'm talking about, well done.

Goodnight now.

No, it wouldn't really. Obviously, I would personally be put out by it, but I wouldn't be boring people on the internet about it, and then demanding society be restructured.

AndrewJRenko

Time wrote: »

Imagine how many convictions Angela Fahy would be responsible for then!

Check out Cycling Mikey on Twitter - he has achieved hundreds of convictions of motorists, mostly for mobile phone use (6 penalty points a pop) by submitting helmet camera footage. The much more streamlined process makes it feasible.

CramCycle

AulWan wrote: »

Are you actually serious with this?

Yes, it is how good policing works.Christ on a bike, if you wanted to put in the effort you probably would have had a good chance of doing it on your own without the cops. Depends how you value €400, but I imagein where no one was injured physically, it would not be a major priority for most.

If the opposite was true, would you be wondering how much blame to attribute to the cyclist? Like hell you would. But nice try.

Of course I would, in fact in every collision where someone comes up with a completely one sided story, my spidey senses start tingling. I could be wrong but it is always worth asking.

THIS attiude is why people so many people have nothing good to say about cyclists.

The opinons of people who lump everyone in together based on one flimsy common denominator typically aren't high on my list of concerns.

AulWan wrote: »

Ah, but I'd bet your attitude would be different if a car hit your bike and caused €400 worth of damage.

But thanks, you've just given me a perfect display of the kind of hypocritical attitude I'm talking about, well done.

Goodnight now.

You hit someone on a bike and cause €400 worth of damage, there is a good chance you have seriously physically injured them unless it is a very expensive pair of wheels. That is why I would expect someone to stop, basic decency, nowt to do with the €400.

It is sometimes hard for people without this empathy you mention to realise, but that is the concern, not the €400, but the person. I have hit a car before, 100% my fault. I stopped, it depends on the person, nothing to do with the vehicle they are using.

Let me guess you have a solution for this non issue that you have picked up on. I can assure you, unless you are about to reinvent the wheel, it has been thought of and there is a good reason it is not being done.

tomasrojo

Now I think about it, someone -- in a car, mind, with those amazing crime-stopping registration plates -- reversed over my parked bike years ago and drove off without leaving a note. For me at the time, it was a week's worth of money to fix all the damage they did. I don't think I've ever bothered mentioning it before. I don't think I'll bother mentioning it again. I certainly didn't start musing about what type of people "drivers" are.

magicbastarder

AulWan wrote: »

You see, this is what annoys me about cyclists. I tell you about a very straightforward incident where my car was damaged by a cyclist, and while initially trying to appear empathetic, you then try to turn it around and make it about the fact that drivers damage cars all the time - as if that somehow excuses the actions of the cyclist who damaged my car. It doesn't.

So, I guess I'm done.

the whole rationale for this 'cyclists should wear identifying information' argument is based purely on the 'well, cars need identifying information' basis. so the damage cars do is key to the debate, as the frequency and scale of the damage should be the primary focus for the debate. but cyclists so rarely damage cars that it'd be a laughably retrograde step to force them do wear whatever you'd like them to wear.

tomasrojo

This tone that comes up as well, "Something must be done:here's something! Oh, you say it's been tried and it's a waste of time. Well, that just sums up why everyone hates you!"

magicbastarder

i am curious now as to where the threshold would be in terms of size of vehicle, and whether you'd need a licence plate or not. where would you attach one to a skateboard?

Time

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Check out Cycling Mikey on Twitter - he has achieved hundreds of convictions of motorists, mostly for mobile phone use (6 penalty points a pop) by submitting helmet camera footage. The much more streamlined process makes it feasible.

He's in the UK though, the laws are different here and according to this article in the Irish Times video evidence was key in two cases last year.

Emme

On the rare occasions I cycle in city traffic now I am too busy trying to stay alive to watch out for other cyclists breaking rules. Militant cyclists fully armed with aerodynamic helmets and dressed head to foot in lycra can endanger the lives of other cyclists by sticking to the rules by the letter.

One example is a cyclist who waits behind the white line beside traffic at red lights with a left turn instead of going in front of the traffic to wait where they will be seen by cars. There will be a line of cyclists behind them and when the lights turn red the smug lycra clad militant in the front of the line is most likely to get through the lights safely while the other cyclists are at the mercy of cars deciding to turn left without indication or warning.

Many cyclists who bend the rules are those who have years or decades of experience and survival. They know that to follow the rules to the letter on city roads can mean death. On the other hand many lycra clad militants are relatively new to cycling (a year or two), got their bike and gear through the bike to work scheme and follow the rules to the letter thinking it will protect them from getting knocked off their bikes. (1) it won't. (2) if a cyclist falls foul of a motorist they get the blame and the law does not protect them.

The most important thing for a cyclist is to be seen by other traffic. Wear a high-viz jacket or vest. No need for a full hi-viz lycra suit. Position yourself where traffic can see you. Wear a helmet. There is no need to dress in head to toe lycra like you're doing the Tour de France. You're doing a survival course in Irish traffic.

magicbastarder

by gum, i didn't realise my cycling shorts made me smug.

Stark

Emme wrote: »

On the rare occasions I cycle in city traffic now I am too busy trying to stay alive to watch out for other cyclists breaking rules. Militant cyclists fully armed with aerodynamic helmets and dressed head to foot in lycra can endanger the lives of other cyclists by sticking to the rules by the letter.

One example is a cyclist who waits behind the white line beside traffic at red lights with a left turn instead of going in front of the traffic to wait where they will be seen by cars. There will be a line of cyclists behind them and when the lights turn red the smug lycra clad militant in the front of the line is most likely to get through the lights safely while the other cyclists are at the mercy of cars deciding to turn left without indication or warning.

Many cyclists who bend the rules are those who have years or decades of experience and survival. They know that to follow the rules to the letter on city roads can mean death. On the other hand many lycra clad militants are relatively new to cycling (a year or two), got their bike and gear through the bike to work scheme and follow the rules to the letter thinking it will protect them from getting knocked off their bikes. (1) it won't. (2) if a cyclist falls foul of a motorist they get the blame and the law does not protect them.

The most important thing for a cyclist is to be seen by other traffic. Wear a high-viz jacket or vest. No need for a full hi-viz lycra suit. Position yourself where traffic can see you. Wear a helmet. There is no need to dress in head to toe lycra like you're doing the Tour de France. You're doing a survival course in Irish traffic.

That was even more painful to read than some of the "oh a cycling thread on the front page, I think I'll post something off-topic and ill-informed in it" motorist posts.

MojoMaker

Emme wrote: »

On the rare occasions I cycle in city traffic now I am too busy trying to stay alive to watch out for other cyclists breaking rules. Militant cyclists fully armed with aerodynamic helmets and dressed head to foot in lycra can endanger the lives of other cyclists by sticking to the rules by the letter.

One example is a cyclist who waits behind the white line beside traffic at red lights with a left turn instead of going in front of the traffic to wait where they will be seen by cars. There will be a line of cyclists behind them and when the lights turn red the smug lycra clad militant in the front of the line is most likely to get through the lights safely while the other cyclists are at the mercy of cars deciding to turn left without indication or warning.

Many cyclists who bend the rules are those who have years or decades of experience and survival. They know that to follow the rules to the letter on city roads can mean death. On the other hand many lycra clad militants are relatively new to cycling (a year or two), got their bike and gear through the bike to work scheme and follow the rules to the letter thinking it will protect them from getting knocked off their bikes. (1) it won't. (2) if a cyclist falls foul of a motorist they get the blame and the law does not protect them.

The most important thing for a cyclist is to be seen by other traffic. Wear a high-viz jacket or vest. No need for a full hi-viz lycra suit. Position yourself where traffic can see you. Wear a helmet. There is no need to dress in head to toe lycra like you're doing the Tour de France. You're doing a survival course in Irish traffic.

Loving your campaign on Instagram Angela. I rarely cycle the roads and paths you are patrolling on our behalf but your intent is laudable - hopefully people start listening so we can effect some positive action.

kennethsmyth

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

There's no law against that, but it's enough for me to want her stopped. She's breaching GDPR with gay abandon, but that's civil law as far as I know. She's harassing people, but not necessarily any individual.

Nope public place no GDPR issue at all. She's videoing not using cctv etc.

AulWan

magicbastarder wrote: »

the whole rationale for this 'cyclists should wear identifying information' argument is based purely on the 'well, cars need identifying information' basis. so the damage cars do is key to the debate, as the frequency and scale of the damage should be the primary focus for the debate. but cyclists so rarely damage cars that it'd be a laughably retrograde step to force them do wear whatever you'd like them to wear.

Unfortunately, how frequently cyclists do damage to cars is not recorded in any official capacity, and its precisely because cyclists who cause damage (or accidents) cannot be identified. That is the whole point.

You say cyclists "so rarely" cause damage, yet I raised one incident where damage was done to my own car by a cyclist, I got a response of "I know 4 people the same thing happened too".

So, not so rare, apparently.

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

droidus

AulWan wrote: »

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

Fascinating. If cyclists adopted the same idiotic position, many of them would be justified in obstructing and terrorising motorists, and, indeed, damaging their cars.

Emme

magicbastarder wrote: »

by gum, i didn't realise my cycling shorts made me smug.

If all they do is make you look smug count yourself lucky.

07Lapierre

Time wrote: »

Imagine how many convictions Angela Fahy would be responsible for then!

Who’s Angela Fahy? Not that it matters, if anyone is caught doing something illegal on our roads, video evidence should be used.

07Lapierre

AulWan wrote: »

And likewise, dash cams.

Anyone who attempts to drive in Dublin without one is nuts.

Nah it’s not that bad. I’ve a dash cam for a few years now and thankfully I’ve never needed it.

RobbieMD

AulWan wrote: »

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

Should we force everyone to wear identification numbers then? It’d make it easy to identify bank robbers and burglars too.

Cyclists aren’t against being identifiable. We have finite resources to pursue crimes. Time that ought to be spent where it makes the most difference, and in road safety terms, that means motorists. I take it you don’t cycle much if your issue is with cyclists being identifiable.

CramCycle

AulWan wrote: »

Unfortunately, how frequently cyclists do damage to cars is not recorded in any official capacity, and its precisely because cyclists who cause damage (or accidents) cannot be identified. That is the whole point.

You say cyclists "so rarely" cause damage, yet I raised one incident where damage was done to my own car by a cyclist, I got a response of "I know 4 people the same thing happened too".

So, not so rare, apparently.

By cars as well if you had read the post correctly.

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

I could probably give a fair description of most of the ones I met this morning without issue, cars a bit less so as they all blend into one and I am more focused on if they are about to do something stupid than their specifics. Most would be easy to pick out of a line up if you sat on the same road at the same time the next day or next week. Maybe public transport is the way to go for you if it took extra attention to notice nothing.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

Because that is working so well for motorists? Your having a laugh or being obtuse, or both. I am very identifiable on the bike. Funnily enough when ever I have been pulled up by a motorist and I stop, they never want to wait for the Gardai, particularly if you mention that it is on video.

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

So your saying because one person acts badly (or loads) that everyone in that group deserves poor treatment. That is insane. Imagine if I started acting the maggot towards every motorist because a few cut me up, that would be an insane response.

magicbastarder

AulWan wrote: »

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable.

it's a barrier to cycling. it's that simple. the fewer cyclists there are on the road, the more dangerous it is for remaining cyclists. if someone wants to pop to the shops on their bike but needs to register their bike and carry some form of (as yet unidentified) means of identifying that bike from a distance, the numbers cycling will fall, and cause problems far greater than the issue this measure is supposed to fix.

Stark

The fact that pretty much every country in the world has an "AulWan" campaigning for mandatory registration but not even the most regressive countries have given the idea the time of day should speak volumes.

It would present a bureaucratic nightmare with very little to be gained.

Roadhawk

AulWan wrote: »

Unfortunately, how frequently cyclists do damage to cars is not recorded in any official capacity, and its precisely because cyclists who cause damage (or accidents) cannot be identified. That is the whole point.

I agree..."if it cant be measured, it cant be managed. In order to measure an incident there needs to be a way to account for it.

AulWan wrote: »

You say cyclists "so rarely" cause damage, yet I raised one incident where damage was done to my own car by a cyclist, I got a response of "I know 4 people the same thing happened too".

anecdotal, but i do relate.

AulWan wrote: »

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

Apparently the financial cost of implementing and running a registered bike system far outweighs its revenue return...I dont see how though...i have seen +5 cyclists run a single red light at any one time (€40x5 per red light). Bring in a few red light cams, now it makes cents

Regs look great too:

AulWan wrote: »

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

Amen to that.

07Lapierre

RobbieMD wrote: »

Should we force everyone to wear identification numbers then? It’d make it easy to identify bank robbers and burglars too.

Cyclists aren’t against being identifiable. We have finite resources to pursue crimes. Time that ought to be spent where it makes the most difference, and in road safety terms, that means motorists. I take it you don’t cycle much if your issue is with cyclists being identifiable.

I have an RSI number, car rev number, CI license number, unique Telephone number! Now you want me to have yet another number?

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

anecdotal, but i do relate.

The post being referred to talked about cars doing it.

Apparently the financial cost of implementing and running a registered bike system far outweighs its revenue return...I dont see how though...i have seen +5 cyclists run a single red light at any one time (€40x5 per red light). Bring in a few red light cams, now it makes cents

You'll probably find most Cyclists would be very in favour of red light cameras. Since we are on the anecdotal bandwagon, in the last few years, I cannot recall a junction where more cyclists have broke the red in comparison to motorists.

Regs look great too:

The look isn't the issue, it's the bureaucracy and idiocy that goes with it. Cars need insurance because the damage they are likely to cause in an accident is above and beyond what most people can afford to repay, this is untrue for cyclists. As for motor tax, taxes are to an extent to be fair and equitable. To make a similar tax for cyclists as you have for motorists, either motor tax has to sky rocket due to the massive subsidies motorists receive or the government would otherwise have to pay cyclists for the money they bring to the economy or reduce from its cost.

Amen to that.

What does this even mean, is it a veiled threat, I don't see too many incidents of cyclists killing motorists, nor do I hear tell of many killing pedestrians. So Amen to that, does this mean the two of you are going to make sure you put cyclists at practically zero risk when you are on the road because that is what they do to you.

RobbieMD

07Lapierre wrote: »

I have an RSI number, car rev number, CI license number, unique Telephone number! Now you want me to have yet another number?

No I don’t. I was directing that at the poster saying cyclists aren’t identifiable. IMO cyclists don’t need to be anymore identifiable than Joe soap walking down the road.

07Lapierre

RobbieMD wrote: »

No I don’t. I was directing that at the poster saying cyclists aren’t identifiable. IMO cyclists don’t need to be anymore identifiable than Joe soap walking down the road.

Apologies... knee jerk post on my behalf.

AulWan

CramCycle wrote: »

You'll probably find most Cyclists would be very in favour of red light cameras. Since we are on the anecdotal bandwagon, in the last few years, I cannot recall a junction where more cyclists have broke the red in comparison to motorists.

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

He’s right. “Amber gambling” as well as red light jumping is rife in Dublin! It’s so frequent now it’s easy to take it for granted. Cyclists are easier to spot doing this, which gives the impression they all do it. Which is incorrectt

Duckjob

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

Or maybe just not blinded by irrational hatred. Maybe you could take a objective view by researching the many many studies that show cyclists taken as a group break laws at roughly the same or slightly lower rate than motorists taken as a group.

Also, as another poster pointed out, deciding that someone you see on a bike is not worthy of respect / safe treatment based on the actions of a different person you saw on a bike at a different time and place is idiotic.

RoadHawk wrote:

Amen to that

Quiet day over on the motoring forum eh lads?