Pulled over for cycling on the path?!

Hagar

No because it shows total lack of repect for all other road users and pedestrians alike.

[DaffyDuck Voice] It's despicable. [/Daffy Duck Voice]

themole

Hagar wrote:

No because it shows total lack of repect for all other road users and pedestrians alike.

[DaffyDuck Voice] It's despicable. [/Daffy Duck Voice]

how so?

jman0

I suspect Hagar means when a cyclist presses the pedestrian crossing button to turn the lights so they can safely cross the road.
I don't believe it's against any law doing that.
He probably just doesn't like having to loose momentum and apply brakes, only to have to clutch and accelerate again after a short pause.... such effort! :rolleyes:

Hagar

Almost right. Its when cyclists decide to stop being cyclists for a moment when it suits them and pretend to be pedestrians without actually dismounting from their bikes. Now that would be an effort. My understanding is that pedestrain crossings are for pedestrians, in much the same way as footpaths are for feet not tyres!

rubadub

Hagar wrote:

No because it shows total lack of repect for all other road users and pedestrians alike.

[DaffyDuck Voice] It's despicable. [/Daffy Duck Voice]

So I am cycling to my local supermarket, cars whizzing by ignoring my hand signals. So cycle up to the pedestrian crossing where somebody has pressed the button, people are now crossing, so I cycle across, never going near the path, turn around and cycle into the carpark from the road. And you think I am laughing in the face of the motorists and pedestrians? Haha you fukers, I have no respect for you! :rolleyes: bizarre what some people get upset about...

Is it illegal for people to walk in cycleways? I wouldnt mind seeing some of them summoned. I'd love to know my rights, like if I could make a citizens arrest on the gardai who are always at whites cross on money-making duty, strolling around the cycleway oblivious

There was talk of fines for cycling on foot paths a while back, probably scrapped due to the brutal system in place. I would have insisted on always being on the road if that was the case. The hill in kilmacud from the school going up to the industrial estate is unsafe to cycle on due to buses and jeeps insisting on kicking you to the kerb since it is so narrow.

themole

Hagar wrote:

Almost right. Its when cyclists decide to stop being cyclists for a moment when it suits them and pretend to be pedestrians without actually dismounting from their bikes.

thats the advantage of cycling.

its closer to walking than driving.

thats why people cycle.

Trojan

I always use the pedestrian lights around Clontarf Road and East Point, because the traffic never, ever, ever, voluntarily gives way for a cyclist to pull out (e.g. from the bottom of St. Lawrence Road, turning right onto Clontarf Road), like they would for a car.

eth0_

Trojan wrote:

Argument lost due to generalisation.



When other vehicles such as trucks and cars realise that cyclists are part of the traffic and due at least the same respect as they give other motorists.

I'm sorry but virtually every day I see cyclists break red lights. This is not because a car or lorry is forcing them off the road. Traffic is stopped at a red light, and some lemon on a bike sails right through the red light.

I'm not anti-cycling, I cycle too (although not as a means of commuting) but come on, you have to admit the majority of cyclists are bad to the point of being dangerous, be it from not obeying the rules or the road, or just not wearing a helmet/having lights on the bike/having a bell etc.

Civilian_Target

Hagar wrote:

Almost right. Its when cyclists decide to stop being cyclists for a moment when it suits them and pretend to be pedestrians without actually dismounting from their bikes. Now that would be an effort. My understanding is that pedestrain crossings are for pedestrians, in much the same way as footpaths are for feet not tyres!

Haha! There's 2 things you can do here - I've tried both. I used to work in Santry in an industrial est. just off the old airport road. To get into the estate, I would turn right at the Crown Plaza hotel. There is no right turning lane at this point in the road, because it's a pedestrians and cyclists only entrance, however the correct way to enter would be to stop at the junction on the middle-right hand side of the road and wait until a suitable gap in the traffic appears for me to turn right. If I do this, I back up the traffic behind me (a suitable gap would often take a minute to arrive) which gets me beeped at, but it the legally correct solution. Alternatively, I can help the traffic flow by stopping by the lights, hitting the button and turning right when the crossing goes green (since there's pedestrians there half the time, its going to happen anyway). Which is the correct solution? I've done both, more than once, and settled on using the lights, its safer for all concerned and better for the city's traffic flow.

Gavin

eth0_ wrote:

I'm sorry but virtually every day I see cyclists break red lights. This is not because a car or lorry is forcing them off the road. Traffic is stopped at a red light, and some lemon on a bike sails right through the red light.

I go through pedestrian lights when there are no pedestrians. As do nearly all other cylists I come across. Some don't of course.

Junctions however, I don't go through, and _most_ cyclists I see don't either.

There are several categories of cyclists. The ones that commute every day are safe, and careful. Usually wear helmets, lights etc.

Casual cyclists are a different story. People that hop on a bicycle, swing onto the road and don't have a clue what's going on. No helmet, no lights, knees out a mile to avoid trousers in the chain, weaving around on the cycle lane, going slow and fast. Plebs in other words.

These are the ones that go through lights and get squashed by trucks etc. I suspect that the majority of motorists complaints are about this class of cyclist.

Gav

dregin

Finner wrote:

Oh my G!!! Back in January a cycle cop stopped me on Bird Avenue and took my details because I cycled up onto the path to avoid some traffic lights. Now I've just been given a summons to go to court for it!!! What is the world coming to?

Us cyclists don't think twice about these things - we're pedestrians when we want to be and road users when we want to be!!! Just thought I'd warn some fellow cyclists at least if I spread my story some good will come from this situation...

Has anyone else been in a similar situation? I have no clue what to expect from a court appearance!!!

At long last. I'm sick of seeing cyclists swan through traffic lights, not wearing helmets or reflective gear and on footpaths. Some good? yeah maybe cyclists will cop on to the fact that they aren't the only people using the roads.

Hagar

Extract from the British Highway Code

64: Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

I can't find a similar online reference from the Irish Rules of the Road. Perhaps this is because the Govt here would rather have the €3 per copy instead of giving away free life saving information.

Cyclists crossing zebra crossings on their bikes are breaking the law. Regardless of why they do it.

dregin

Verb wrote:

As do nearly all other cylists I come across.

C'mon man you can't use that to back up a claim. I know it's probably true, but just because everyone does it, doesn't mean it's legal/safe for other road users.

Gavin

Hagar wrote:

Cyclists crossing zebra crossings on their bikes are breaking the law. Regardless of why they do it.

Aye, let's bust em ! While we're at it, let's get all the pedestrians for jaywalking too ! We'll fill the jails up in no time with our zero tolerance society. Put em to work as chain gangs, building larger roads, more room for cyclists, but no zebra crossing, or crossings for cyclists. Pedestrians and cyclists will have to break the law to cross the road (chickens too). This never ending spiral will keep jails full and the country well paved !!

Fugitive Gav

Duckjob

Verb wrote:

I go through pedestrian lights when there are no pedestrians. As do nearly all other cylists I come across. Some don't of course.

So, in other words, you're saying that:
a) you deliberately disregard the rules of the road when it suits you
and
b) nearly all other cyclists you come across do the same.

That sort of jusitifies the complaints against cyclists on this thread.

btw i'm a motorist but sometimes cyclist myself.

Gavin

dregin wrote:

C'mon man you can't use that to back up a claim. I know it's probably true, but just because everyone does it, doesn't mean it's legal/safe for other road users.

Oh I'm not saying it's right, I know it's wrong and if a garda stopped me, fine. It's simply an anecdotal observation.

Gav

Gavin

Duckjob wrote:

So, in other words, you're saying that:
a) you deliberately disregard the rules of the road when it suits you
and
b) nearly all other cyclists you come across do the same.

That sort of jusitifies the complaints against cyclists on this thread.

btw i'm a motorist but sometimes cyclist myself.

Yes, in certain circumstances. I described those circumstances however, and they are in the minority of general road use. Same way that pedestrians jaywalk, or motorists park in cycle lanes, or motorists break the speed limit etc.

Gav

Trojan

dregin wrote:

maybe cyclists will cop on to the fact that they aren't the only people using the roads.

I think you'll find that of all the groups of road users, regular cyclists are by far and away the most aware that they aren't the only people using the roads, simply because otherwise they'd be parking in the big boxes when they go to the supermarket.

Regards red-lights, I break about 5% of them (1 in 20), always depending on circumstances, e.g. whether there's any murderous car commuters around looking to vent their rage on another road user who DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!!!!!1111111oneoneone. In fact, when I do break a red, I'm more aware of cars than when I'm cycling along. I consider my broken reds equivalent to a driver hitting a red in the suburbs at 5.30am with noone around - how many people continue straight through? A cyclist breaking an empty red pedestrian crossing is so much worse than a several-tonne amber gambler roaring through a busy crossroads at 40 mph and gaining, which is not mentioned very often in discussion of breaking lights.

All bus drivers are lazy, non-English speaking chancers! All women can't drive! All truck drivers paint bicycles on the side of their rigs when they squash another one! All cyclists are redlight running terrorists harboring Osama Bin Laden in their panniers, and did we mention that THEY DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!!!!!1111111oneoneone

If you missed the sarcasm, I'm expressing the opinion that I don't believe any discussion of this topic on boards in the last 3 years has differed significantly from US v THEM, and is pretty pointless at this stage. Without real solutions from politicians to the dangerous problems people have with cycling in the city, I can just see people cycle less and less, and I shall continue to travel to France for my cycling holidays, instead of risking Irish roads.

Hagar

Trojan wrote:

I shall continue to travel to France for my cycling holidays, instead of risking Irish roads.

Just watch out for the Gendarmes, the Police Municipale and the ASVP. They'll put manners on you my bucko. No "couldn't give a shyte" Gardaí down here.

I'm down here and I'm waiting, door already unlatched and slightly ajar... wipeout...

Oh yeah, and there's no road tax.

rubadub

I do go through red lights, very seldom, usually I am stopped at lights, can see that absolutely nothing is coming. Thing is I know I can get away with it.
Pedestrians are far worse for breaking lights, since they know the chance of being done for jay-walking is very slim. I

To the motorists here moaning about light breaking, picture this. You are on a massive stretch of road, christmas morning at 5am, very well lit, not a sinner on the road, no noise for mile, and you are at a pedestrian crossing which is red, you press it and it has one of those counters counting down 300seconds, would you wait? OR BREAK THE LAW LIKE A RUTHLESS MURDERER.

As a pedestrian I break the law all the time, without a second thought. On a bike I will ocassionally, if safe, I would look around for the gardai the odd time. In a car I never, ever break lights, even if I am certain it is perfectly safe and cannot see any gardai.

The N11 from whites cross to cabinteely (probably further) is 50km/hr these days, I do not see a SINGLE car that obeys this, I go faster on my bike on one stretch. I drove it the other day obeying the limit and had people up my arse the whole way looking across expecting a doddery old biddy to be driving.

Trojan

Hagar wrote:

Just watch out for the Gendarmes, the Police Municipale and the ASVP. They'll put manners on you my bucko. No "couldn't give a shyte" Gardaí down here.

Continuing on in the vitriolic us v them vein, I'm quite experienced at cycling in France, including being questioned at length on my destination at 1am by the RATP (while cycling along the Seine).

In France a cyclist is not forced to go to the same outrageous lengths as here in order to avoid being run over by ignorant motorists, so I can report that my bucko does not have a problem. But thanks for the condescention.

Milo

I don't know whether it's already been said but of the motorists here who has never gone through an amber light?? It means stop you know not speed up because red is coming!!!

Also what happens when a gaurd stops you for cycling on a road and tells you to dismount?? This happened to me a couple of months ago on Wicklow street at Tower records (this part only becomes pedestrianised after 11). I duely informed the gaurd of this fact and he asked me to prove it, so I showed him the sign! After looking at the sign he said it was only for "goods vehicles, that's vans and trucks" and I asked him about motor bikes to which he replied that they weren't allowed either! I then pointed to the motor cycle behind him about 2 metres and after a bit of a fluster he announced that the motorcyclist was "probably delivering something". I then told him I was delivering something to which he said "well if you are you'll do it on foot".

Just for the record I wouldn't cycle on the path anyway!

John_C

Going around St. Stephen's Green I usually break the red light at the pedestrian crossing near the Baggot Street corner because it lets me merge into the right turning lane when the road is empty because the cars are stopped. By doing this I avoid merging right at the same time as busses are merging left.

This manouver is illegal as I am breaking a red light. It is also the safest route to take and it avoids slowing down the motorised traffic. My rules of the Road book says that my primary concern should be my safety and the safety of other road users. This is the principle I apply. Am I correct in doing this?

fade2black

I think there have far too many replies on this thread by people who have no idea how difficult it is getting around on a bike in cities these days. I would consider myself to be a good cyclist, i don't cycle on paths but I do take neccesary risks to avoid getting a clatter from drivers who never seem to see cyclists. Only yesterday I was cycling along a main road when a woman turned left in front of me to go into a petrol station, I had to brake suddenly and she was none the wiser. I then start thinking of what it would be like if she had hit me and how the silly bitch's day would be ruined. So many times drivers pull out in front of me and then just laugh it off...

Sure there are idiot cyclists who speed along pedestrian areas and give others a bad name, just like there are idiot drivers. With regard to going through the lights when the green man is on...I always do it, i cycle at a snail's pace and I do so because there are some junctions where it is just safer for an invisible cyclists to get a head start on the motorised cavalery behind them.

Maybe some of you fat asses should hop on a bike some day and see what it's like.

Gavin

John_C wrote:

Going around St. Stephen's Green I usually break the red light at the pedestrian crossing near the Baggot Street corner because it lets me merge into the right turning lane when the road is empty because the cars are stopped. By doing this I avoid merging right at the same time as busses are merging left.

This manouver is illegal as I am breaking a red light. It is also the safest route to take and it avoids slowing down the motorised traffic. My rules of the Road book says that my primary concern should be my safety and the safety of other road users. This is the principle I apply. Am I correct in doing this?

No. Straight to jail card. Do not pass GO! Do not collect 200 euro!

Hagar

Trojan wrote:

Continuing on in the vitriolic us v them vein, I'm quite experienced at cycling in France, including being questioned at length on my destination at 1am by the RATP (while cycling along the Seine).

In France a cyclist is not forced to go to the same outrageous lengths as here in order to avoid being run over by ignorant motorists, so I can report that my bucko does not have a problem. But thanks for the condescention.

Lighten up FFS. There's no animosity or condecesion coming from my side. It's just a bit of banter on my part. Do you really think I intended to hit you with the car door...

Ghost Rider

A lot of people ask irately why the law shouldn't apply to cyclists. The implication is that the law is beyond question, that the law is intrinsically correct and practical for everyone, or even for the majority. Well, it isn't. The fact is that the law reflects the will of legislators and the legislators of this country are not, for the most part, interested in facilitating cyclists.

This lack of will is also noticeable in other state powers and agencies. The excessive presence of traffic lights in Dublin city centre and the way they are programmed is primarily determined by considerations of motor traffic and not by considerations of pedestrian or cycle traffic. The refusal to create, maintain and police proper, exclusive cycle lanes is another indication of the same thing. There are plenty of other indications which I won't even go into.

Even though cycling is the best travel option in Dublin city centre, getting around the city centre is a frustrating business. One's progress is constantly halted for reasons that have nothing to do with cycling (or walking) and everything to do with the problems created by excessive use of cars. It is clear that traffic policy and the instruments by which it is regulated and implemented, are largely for motorists. That's why the notion that cyclists should accept this policy without question is absurd. Hearing that from motorists is not only absurd, it's irritating.

It pains me to see cyclists and pedestrians attacking one another on this forum. Pedestrians and cyclists should unite. Why? Because the streets belong to everyone, yet it is clear that the motorists' agenda is the one dictating policy. Pedestrians and cyclists are natural allies because they are the ones who lose out in this situation.

I love cars and I love the freedom of driving but it's clear to me that the national love affair with the car has to end. The car has become a grotesque symbol of the type of society we're in danger of creating in Ireland: individualistic, all too willing to sacrifice the public sphere for spurious gains in personal freedom and above all selfish.

But I take an optimistic view and here's why: even if we cyclists don't get through to the legislators, the county councils or the Gardai, the global oil situation may do the job for us.

Cabaal

Hagar wrote:

Almost right. Its when cyclists decide to stop being cyclists for a moment when it suits them and pretend to be pedestrians without actually dismounting from their bikes. Now that would be an effort. My understanding is that pedestrain crossings are for pedestrians, in much the same way as footpaths are for feet not tyres!

rubadub's point is 100% valid, sometimes motorists make it so dangerous to cross that people on bikes have no other option, I know it happens to me most days on my way to work especially if I'm on a 9-10am start.


Although not mentioned by you I have to agree that nobody on a bike should break a red light, just like nobody in a car should.
I was on my way to work this morning @ 7.30am and although I was on a bike and the light was red with not a car insight I stayed were I was yet the motorists behind me drove off like it was all OK and legal...with people driving like that no wounder their's accidents.

dalk

The same old arguments are peddled out in these discussions. Belligerent drivers, crap cycle-lanes, cyclists breaking lights, cycling on footpaths, you stay on your part of the road/i'll stay on my side, bloody cyclists/bloody motorists etc. Then predictably a motorist starts talking about their superior rights due to them paying 'road tax', which we all know does not exist... And so on with varying degrees of bitterness on both sides. There is no clear winner, apart from the concensus (can we at least agree on that?) that there is a certain percentage of cyclists and motorists who are assholes and are danger to themselves and others...

However, what i usually dont hear motorists complaining about is a fear that they could be mortally wounded by a cyclist. Something that is a very real fear for a cyclist on certain roads and situations... (Pedestrians have the bonus of worrying about injury from all other modes of transport, including sharing space with some cycle-lanes).

Now a lot of the discussed situations have little to do with cycling safe on the roads (beaking lights for instance). But some do, for example, using pedestrian lights instead of crossing lanes of traffic to make a right turn.

So really, who has more to complain about? Which would you prefer? Fear of injury or the nuisance of watching a cyclist break lights/mount footpath/cross at pedestrian lights. Run the risk of having your wing mirror clipped or your collar bone broken? Have a cyclist brain him/herself or your car door dented? A dent on your bonnet or find yourself unconsious on a car bonnet? My no-claims bonus or my broken hip bone?

Given the choice, i would prefer to run over a cyclist, than to be run over whilst cycling :rolleyes:

So whilst fear of injury doesn't give cyclists a carte blanche to do as they please on roads, it does explain a lot of the defensive cycling, and/or curb hopping/pedestrian light using/lane hogging seen around town... The rest we will have to blame the assholes for...

Mr. Presentable

Finner wrote:

Oh my G!!! Back in January a cycle cop stopped me on Bird Avenue and took my details because I cycled up onto the path to avoid some traffic lights. Now I've just been given a summons to go to court for it!!! What is the world coming to?

Us cyclists don't think twice about these things - we're pedestrians when we want to be and road users when we want to be!!! Just thought I'd warn some fellow cyclists at least if I spread my story some good will come from this situation...

Has anyone else been in a similar situation? I have no clue what to expect from a court appearance!!!

Garda probably won't turn up and you'll get off.

I've been hit from behind twice by cyclists on the footpath, so I think you should be treated the same as if you were a motorist. And, yes, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and all the other rules of the road apply to cyclists as well.