Cyclists, insurance and road tax

statto25

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why do motorists have a problem with some cyclists wearing cycling gear made of lycra? What's the actual issue with that?

Motorists believe we are all Tour DeFrance wannabies if we have bib shorts and jersey etc on while cycling. "Lycra clad heroes" is a term flung about Boards on occasion. Reality is the clothes we wear are the same as any soccer player wearing boots, shinpads etc. The equipment makes a difference and is also for comfort.

statto25

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you think that your journey is more important than anyone else's journey?

because they pay Motor/Road Tax :rolleyes:

gmacww

km991148 wrote: »

But also the infrastructure costs alone are far more than motortax receipts generate (from what I understand from this thread) - which is often the first red alert for 'fairness'.

This is true but it's also based of most people ignorance. Not entirely their own fault to be fair. Roads are built and maintained out of the general taxation pot. So if you pay any sort of tax regardless of owning a car or not you're pay for the roads.



As the great Reg of the PFJ once said: "Yeah well obviously the roads I mean the roads go without saying don't they?"


Motor tax on the other hand is an environmental levy. This is split from the last breakdown I saw between our carbon fines and general taxation pot.

km991148

gmacww wrote: »

This is true but it's also based of most people ignorance. Not entirely their own fault to be fair.

I know - but its at the crux of the whole "They don't even pay road tax [for the upkeep of the roads]" - and the first 60 pages of this thread (and a thousand others).

micar

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why do motorists have a problem with some cyclists wearing cycling gear made of lycra? What's the actual issue with that?

It's the only sport/activity where those who wears clothing specifically designed for that sport are routinely vilified.

Sure you don't need a pair of specific runners to run.....surely a pair of simple black shoes would do.

Sure you don't even need a pair of shorts and a t shirt... a pair of jeans and a jumper and you'll be fine.

Thelonious Monk

sprite0 wrote: »

Im surprised that motorists in general and in particular those who have not choice but to drive don't actively encourage more people to take up cycling or at least give those who do cycle a bit of space/respect on the road. Approx 95000 daily cycle commuters in Dublin alone (2018 figures). Can you imagine the mayhem if every single one of these decided to switch to a car instead.

I honestly think these nutters would prefer more cars and worse traffic than having to coexist with cyclists

Spook_ie

osarusan wrote: »

Already posted in the thread:





3 abreast while overtaking other cyclists = legal.


Otherwise illegal.

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

Quote:
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

Your bolding stopped short

oisinog

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Quote:
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

Your bolding stopped short

I would imagine the bit in bold would refer to oncoming traffic

from the same regulations

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Quote:
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

Your bolding stopped short

Unless a person on a bike stops in the middle of the road, they are not inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic flowing the same direction. They are part of that traffic. If they are on the opposite side of the road, then they could be accused of inconveniencing or obstructing traffic going the opposite direction.

Unless a person on a bike directs themselves at a pedestrian (going either direction) or other vehicle (coming from the opposite direction) and cycles at them in a menacing manner (facial expressions may assist) while overtaking, they are not endangering.

swarlb

micar wrote: »

It's the only sport/activity where those who wears clothing specifically designed for that sport are routinely vilified.

Sure you don't need a pair of specific runners to run.....surely a pair of simple black shoes would do.

Sure you don't even need a pair of shorts and a t shirt... a pair of jeans and a jumper and you'll be fine.

Maybe I'm completely out of touch. When I raced bikes the only time I wore 'racing gear' was when I was racing, or training. Any other time I just wore normal clothes. More often than not these days it's anyone and everyone who wears the gear, simply because it's easier to find and cheap to buy.
I've often stopped to chat with some cyclists only to find they have little or no interest in cycling as a sport, and simply want to 'go for a spin'

MangleBadger

swarlb wrote: »

Maybe I'm completely out of touch. When I raced bikes the only time I wore 'racing gear' was when I was racing, or training. Any other time I just wore normal clothes. More often than not these days it's anyone and everyone who wears the gear, simply because it's easier to find and cheap to buy.
I've often stopped to chat with some cyclists only to find they have little or no interest in cycling as a sport, and simply want to 'go for a spin'

It is just a lot more comfortable to wear proper padded bib shorts, and not have a tshirt flapping in the wind etc.
Also I get to pretend to be my hero Lance Armstrong while cycling menacingly through the streets endangering vulnerable motorists. They have these handy pockets on the back to keep my EPO

Fighting Tao

swarlb wrote: »

Maybe I'm completely out of touch. When I raced bikes the only time I wore 'racing gear' was when I was racing, or training. Any other time I just wore normal clothes. More often than not these days it's anyone and everyone who wears the gear, simply because it's easier to find and cheap to buy.
I've often stopped to chat with some cyclists only to find they have little or no interest in cycling as a sport, and simply want to 'go for a spin'

A spin may mean 100km, and it's more comfortable to wear 'racing gear' than normal clothes for that.

Thelonious Monk

I cycled out to Howth, in normal clothes, today, it's about 25 mins from my gaf. The whole place is just covered in cars, its a giant car park and heaving with traffic. Cars have ruined the place. It would just be foolish to keep exasperating this situation.

AndrewJRenko

micar wrote: »

It's the only sport/activity where those who wears clothing specifically designed for that sport are routinely vilified.

Sure you don't need a pair of specific runners to run.....surely a pair of simple black shoes would do.

Sure you don't even need a pair of shorts and a t shirt... a pair of jeans and a jumper and you'll be fine.

But if you wear lycra to go for a jog or to play soccer, as many do, that's fine.

And if you wear lycra to go to Tesco or to go for your walk, as a high percentage of the female population between 18 and 80 does, that's fine too.

It's almost as if it really has nothing to do with lycra and everything to do with tired old clichés.

MrStuffins

Can't believe this thread is still going. Mother of God!

PeadarCo

swarlb wrote: »

Maybe I'm completely out of touch. When I raced bikes the only time I wore 'racing gear' was when I was racing, or training. Any other time I just wore normal clothes. More often than not these days it's anyone and everyone who wears the gear, simply because it's easier to find and cheap to buy.
I've often stopped to chat with some cyclists only to find they have little or no interest in cycling as a sport, and simply want to 'go for a spin'

What's happened is cycling gear has got cheaper and there's a bit more availability and variety. Lidl or Aldi have often sold cheap cycling gear that's perfect for people getting into the sport. The gear is cheap and while it may not be great quality it's far better than cycling with tracksuit bottoms/t shirts once you get cycling beyond a certain time/distance.

Even within Cycling Ireland the majority of members have no interest in racing with the majority taking out leisure memberships.

PeadarCo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Unless a person on a bike stops in the middle of the road, they are not inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic flowing the same direction. They are part of that traffic. If they are on the opposite side of the road, then they could be accused of inconveniencing or obstructing traffic going the opposite direction.

Unless a person on a bike directs themselves at a pedestrian (going either direction) or other vehicle (coming from the opposite direction) and cycles at them in a menacing manner (facial expressions may assist) while overtaking, they are not endangering.

Going slow(whatever the mode of transport, slow is also a relative term) with the exception of motorways is not illegal. There is no minimum speed limit in Ireland.

Even on motorways 20km/hr for example may be acceptable if extreme weather conditions necessitate that ie heavy snow on the road.

Seth Brundle

micar wrote: »

It's the only sport/activity where those who wears clothing specifically designed for that sport are routinely vilified.

Sure you don't need a pair of specific runners to run.....surely a pair of simple black shoes would do.

Sure you don't even need a pair of shorts and a t shirt... a pair of jeans and a jumper and you'll be fine.

If you've ever gone for a run in a regular cotton tee shirt, how were your nipples afterwards? Any chafing? Any bleeding?
People wear appropriate clothing for all forms of sports. Even golfists have their own gear.

magicbastarder

swarlb wrote: »

I've often stopped to chat with some cyclists only to find they have little or no interest in cycling as a sport, and simply want to 'go for a spin'

i have all the gear, and don't watch cycling as a sport or have any interest in competing.
that's the great thing about cycling; it can be a form of commuting, or done for lesiure, or for fitness, or as a sport, and frequently several of those (though i doubt you'd be able to commute and compete at the same time).

as to people who as me why i wear cycling specific gear, my usual answer is to give them a choice; i will go cycling for two hours at a decent intensity (for me, anyway) and they have to put on the top i have been wearing when i finish. do they choose the cotton t-shirt or the synthetic cycling top which is designed to wick away the sweat...

Spook_ie

oisinog wrote: »

I would imagine the bit in bold would refer to oncoming traffic

from the same regulations

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

And not one of those lines counters "and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Unless a person on a bike stops in the middle of the road, they are not inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic flowing the same direction. They are part of that traffic. If they are on the opposite side of the road, then they could be accused of inconveniencing or obstructing traffic going the opposite direction.

Unless a person on a bike directs themselves at a pedestrian (going either direction) or other vehicle (coming from the opposite direction) and cycles at them in a menacing manner (facial expressions may assist) while overtaking, they are not endangering.

You just have to love cyclists when someone posts something in an SI how they wriggle and squirm to try and put a different complexion on what is actually just a binary decision.

If I go three abreast to overtake someone am I "and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"
breaking that section of the SI Yes/No

magicbastarder

the legislation specifically states going three abreast is permitted for overtaking. so the answer is no.
otherwise your claim is that the legislation is self-contradictory.

VonLuck

Spook_ie wrote: »

If I go three abreast to overtake someone am I "and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians" breaking that section of the SI Yes/No

You can't give that a single yes/no answer to all scenarios. Three abreast where you are obstructing oncoming traffic? Yes. Three abreast whilst staying on your side of the road? No.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

the legislation specifically states going three abreast is permitted for overtaking. so the answer is no.
otherwise your claim is that the legislation is self-contradictory.

Gotta get that wriggle on, try reading it as one sentence..


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

Spook_ie

VonLuck wrote: »

You can't give that a single yes/no answer to all scenarios. Three abreast where you are obstructing oncoming traffic? Yes. Three abreast whilst staying on your side of the road? No.

Wriggle wriggle

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

magicbastarder

i genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. are you asking whether it's possible for a cyclist to overtake two others, and stay within the law?

Spook_ie

oisinog wrote: »

I would imagine the bit in bold would refer to oncoming traffic

from the same regulations

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

Wriggle along with the others

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

micar

MrStuffins wrote: »

Can't believe this thread is still going. Mother of God!

Keep it going.....so close to 100 pages








Most of it is pure drivel

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

You just have to love cyclists when someone posts something in an SI how they wriggle and squirm to try and put a different complexion on what is actually just a binary decision.

If I go three abreast to overtake someone am I "and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"
breaking that section of the SI Yes/No

Why is everyone who disagrees with you labeled a cyclist? Is it due to some abstract thinking that all cyclists are evil due to more people on bikes and less people in your taxi?


So far here are my stats for this year:
Cycled: 3 times, 72km
Drove: 2 times a day, >3000km.

Only in your view would that make me a cyclist rather than a motorist.

As for the SI. Your interpretation is wrong, and that is not unique from past discussions with you on legalities on the road.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. are you asking whether it's possible for a cyclist to overtake two others, and stay within the law?

No I'm asking nothing, just pointing out the actual SI relevant to overtaking 3 abreast and that there is a stipulation about it.

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