Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Options
1…4243454748…65

Comments

  • Options
    #1322
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,893 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    km991148 wrote: »
    I can't think of any that are narrower than 2.5 or so meters meaning that you couldn't pass a solo cyclists.
    ...and yet some drivers will still try :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1323
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,234 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    maestroamado wrote: »
    I nave no intention of deleting as i know riding 3 abreast against the law, one of the other posters is going to quote the law that says its is ]legal?
    I also think riding 2 abreast in large groups should be against the law as it is dangerous on single carriage routes..

    24 hours later, and people's comprehension deficits still on display for the amusement of everyone.


  • Options
    #1324
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭km991148


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Stop.

    Please.

    I guess that's apology accepted then :pac:

    I don't know who you think I am or what you think my points are but I am almost certain you are wrong about it (not the points you are making regarding overtaking, we are in complete agreement and seem to have been)! You seem to have confused me with another poster - no need to reply here, just read the thread and maybe edit your post to not misquote me if you don't mind as I don't appreciate having my words taken out of context.


  • Options
    #1325
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,302 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    This is the most hysterical thread on boards at the moment, which is saying something given the hysteria over on the Covid threads! :pac:


  • Options
    #1326
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    km991148 wrote: »
    Changing over who is at the front is an overtake.

    One person moves round the other and a person behind takes their place. Do we need some pictures to illustrate this?

    Or it could be one cyclist not with the other 2 at all, and just overtaking them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1327
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    MojoMaker wrote: »
    Nope, the lunatics are clearly all here.

    Biggest single collection of anti-cycling berks I've seen in almost 20 years on Boards with barely a cyclist's IQ among ye.

    Atrocious spelling, poor self-expression, low emotional reasoning, zero debating skills, complete lack of legal awareness, inability to construct and deliver an argument....just half a dozen to get us started.

    This thread is an embarrassment to motorists in Ireland and listening to the abilities of the cyclists here to make reasoned debate, provide statistics and research links, and to calmly assert truth and logic in the face of whimpering invective has given me new respect for the kind of person that chooses to cycle regularly.

    Unfortunately you are perpetuating the elitist cyclist image- sure a lot of anti-cycling motorists are knackers and not the smartest, but there is no point in ad hominem attack in this debate.


  • Options
    #1328
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

    There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.


  • Options
    #1329
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,762 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

    There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.

    it looks like driving is not for a lot on this thread. makes them way too emotional.


  • Options
    #1330
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    it looks like driving is not for a lot on this thread. makes them way too emotional.

    Imagine living in fear of meeting a person on a bike every time in a car.


  • Options
    #1331
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    If the name of the game here is ensuring that everyone using the road is qualified to do so and pays their fair share, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be retesting drivers every five years or so, and putting all of the tax on fuel instead? Surely nobody calling for cycling licences and cycling tax could be opposed to this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1332
    BabysCoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭BabysCoffee


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

    There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.


    Every time a driver sits in to their car they need to remind themselves of all of the other vulnerable road users that the roads are shared with.


  • Options
    #1333
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    BabysCoffee wrote: »
    Every time a driver sits in to their car they need to remind themselves of all of the other vulnerable road users that the roads are shared with.

    Totally agree. However, we seem to live in a world of self absorbed motorists (if this thread is to go by) and their trip 300m to the shop is much more important than anything else.


  • Options
    #1334
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Hurrache wrote: »
    24 hours later, and people's comprehension deficits still on display for the amusement of everyone.


    Can you say that in english please...


  • Options
    #1335
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    As a driver you are supposed to keep up to date yourself. Ignorance is not a defence in court. Of it was then you could murder someone and then claim you didn’t know the law doesn’t permit it. So do your duty and educate yourself and stop expecting people to do it for you because they are wasting their time when you ignore facts.


    What are you talking about?..... if you know that is....


  • Options
    #1336
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    osarusan wrote: »
    Already posted in the thread:





    3 abreast while overtaking other cyclists = legal.


    Otherwise illegal.




    Where is this stated?
    The law does not allow three abreast.
    If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..


  • Options
    #1337
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    maestroamado wrote: »
    What are you talking about?..... if you know that is....

    Can’t you comprehend what people are telling you in this thread? It’s simple....you are expected to know the law. Claiming that you believe it states something else is not a defence...in English...ignorance of the law is not a defence and will not stand up in court.


  • Options
    #1338
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Where is this stated?
    The law does not allow three abreast.
    If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..

    The text of the law has been posted twice. Are you trolling now?


  • Options
    #1339
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,893 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Where is this stated?
    The law does not allow three abreast.
    If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..
    It is in the Road Traffic Act and has been posted here a couple of times. Have you really not read all of the thread?


  • Options
    #1340
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,642 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Where is this stated?
    The law does not allow three abreast.
    If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..

    Perhaps you are not able to see quotes within quotes or something, so here it is:

    Section 47, S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997:

    A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians


    That means it's legal to cycle 3 abreast when (and only when) safely overtaking cyclists that are cycling 2 abreast.


  • Options
    #1341
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    maestroamado wrote: »
    I also think riding 2 abreast in large groups should be against the law as it is dangerous on single carriage routes..

    You are probably one of those people I get extremely frustrated driving behind, if you think overtaking two cyclists is a problem then you are probably one of those people who can't overtake any slow moving vehicle.
    There is plenty of room in the opposing lane that can be used for the overtake, you don't have to keep one wheel in your lane.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1342
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭km991148


    seamus wrote: »
    If the name of the game here is ensuring that everyone using the road is qualified to do so and pays their fair share, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be retesting drivers every five years or so, and putting all of the tax on fuel instead? Surely nobody calling for cycling licences and cycling tax could be opposed to this?

    If it really was about fairness we would have a system genuinely tied to usage, measured in terms of environmental impact and damage to roads.

    This would massively push up motor tax for most.

    This could be counteracted by giving tax rebates to those that choose to replace done of these journeys by bicycle.

    But it's not about fairness, is it?


  • Options
    #1343
    oisinog
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭oisinog


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

    There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.

    To be fair Tao you may have made a point here.

    I done my driving test 20 years ago and I was never taught what to do when I meet a cyclist on the road (obviously I have a bit of common sense so I knew).
    More needs to be done with the driving test to help drivers deal with venerable road users

    With working from home I have been trying to get in 15k on my bike at lunch time during the week and I have have more trouble with drivers on their R plates and actually on Monday had a white van man pull up beside me and ask me if I wanted his dash cam footage as someone on their R plates cut me off on a dangerous way. Knowing how the PSNI deal with cases like that up here I said thanks but there is no point.


  • Options
    #1344
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    km991148 wrote: »
    If it really was about fairness we would have a system genuinely tied to usage, measured in terms of environmental impact and damage to roads.

    This would massively push up motor tax for most.

    Road damage in relation to vehicle weight rises with the 4th power of weight. An average lorry weighing 32 tonnes will do the same damage as 65,000 2 tonne cars, or 10.5 billion cyclists. If we tried to implement a system of "fairness" we'd end up with incredibly high logistics costs.


  • Options
    #1345
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    It's legal for a single cyclist two overtake two cyclists.

    This isn't the same as cycling three abreast. Additionally, you have to exercise care when overtaking. This is a narrow exception, not blanket permission for cyclists everywhere to cycle three abreast as some here assume.

    So yes, three abreast is illegal in 99% of cases where it occurs.


  • Options
    #1346
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    It's legal for a single cyclist two overtake two cyclists.

    This isn't the same as cycling three abreast. Additionally, you have to exercise care when overtaking. This is a narrow exception, not blanket permission for cyclists everywhere to cycle three abreast as some here assume.

    Who here assumes this?

    Can you make a reference please?


  • Options
    #1347
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    oisinog wrote: »
    To be fair Tao you may have made a point here.

    I done my driving test 20 years ago and I was never taught what to do when I meet a cyclist on the road (obviously I have a bit of common sense so I knew).
    More needs to be done with the driving test to help drivers deal with venerable road users

    With working from home I have been trying to get in 15k on my bike at lunch time during the week and I have have more trouble with drivers on their R plates and actually on Monday had a white van man pull up beside me and ask me if I wanted his dash cam footage as someone on their R plates cut me off on a dangerous way. Knowing how the PSNI deal with cases like that up here I said thanks but there is no point.

    Fair play to the lad in the van all the same.


  • Options
    #1348
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,893 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    It's legal for a single cyclist two overtake two cyclists.

    This isn't the same as cycling three abreast. Additionally, you have to exercise care when overtaking. This is a narrow exception, not blanket permission for cyclists everywhere to cycle three abreast as some here assume.

    So yes, three abreast is illegal in 99% of cases where it occurs.
    But as I've mentioned, many if not most of the three abreast that drivers see is not actually three abreast.
    Maybe you can post the dashcam footage of the three you claim you recently were behind for a mile and we can discuss.


  • Options
    #1349
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Who here assumes this?

    Can you make a reference please?

    When I pointed out that the fairly common behaviour of cycling three abreast is illegal, plenty of posters started pointing out a narrow exception to this rule.

    Any complaints I have about cycling three abreast obviously does not involve a single cyclist overtaking two cyclists who are cycling three abreast. Overtaking takes ~30 seconds - no skin off any motorist's nose.

    I'm obviously complaining about cyclists doing this for an extended amount of time, not with the intention of overtaking, as happened last Saturday.


  • Options
    #1350
    LollipopJimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭LollipopJimmy


    I really don't get it, why do road users see others as the enemy, I cycle, I ride a motorbike and I drive a car and its only when cycling I get abuse for nothing. Funnily enough as part of a college course I was asked to stand at a city centre junction at rush hour and count the number of people breaking lights, I was shocked in the end to note more cars and vans had broken the lights than cyclists and this was the junction of leeson St. and Fitz place.

    Every road user needs to be courteous and patient, if you're not then you're a ****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1351
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,893 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    When I pointed out that the fairly common behaviour of cycling three abreast is illegal, plenty of posters started pointing out a narrow exception to this rule.

    Any complaints I have about cycling three abreast obviously does not involve a single cyclist overtaking two cyclists who are cycling three abreast. Overtaking takes ~30 seconds - no skin off any motorist's nose.

    I'm obviously complaining about cyclists doing this for an extended amount of time, not with the intention of overtaking, as happened last Saturday.
    Fixed your post for you :cool:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement