Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety warning infractions given liberally for trolling etc

magicbastarder · 08-07-2023 10:01am

this says it came into force last year:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/new-eu-rules-on-car-speed-limiters-coming-into-force-1330327.html

and this says it comes into force next year:

https://www.engadget.com/eu-intelligent-speed-assistance-vehicles-anti-speeding-europe-000007992.html

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 10:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821274#Comment_120821274

Its in the cars but enforcement on this will not be happening anytime soon in my view.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 1:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821202#Comment_120821202

You wouldn't expect to be able to overtake a tractor or car yet still think it is ok to be able to pass a dozen people cycling on a road that you say is only 3 metres wide? You seriously need to rethink your approach to passing vulnerable road users. (And you think the people travelling completely legally on bikes were the ones needing some cop on?)

Spook_ie · 08-07-2023 1:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120818975#Comment_120818975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120818488#Comment_120818488

The quoted post from Loueze doesn't blame the cyclists, if you can't understand the difference between blame and share responsibilty then i fear that it is you that has the problem.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 1:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821892#Comment_120821892

First of all cyclists should not be cycling 2 abreast in those conditions in my view for their own safety, remember the title of this thread is "cyclists safety.

Secondly the road is 3 metres,my car is about 1.85 metre, add 1.5 for passing is 3.25 metres for required passing the road is not suitable for bikes and thats the law. There tractor arguement doesn't wash as there is no rules that i amaware of when this happens, gemnerally tht tractor gives way but in the instance i mentioned the bikes 2 abreast held the road for about 30 seconds. when we were passing the driver of the car was breaking the law. one law for bikes that needs to be enforced. If powers that be say that the law is 1.5 metres its up to the councils to ensure the space is there. I am surprised this has not been tested in court but it will happen i would expect in the future.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 2:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821931#Comment_120821931

Have you read what you posted? It's all ill-informed crap which suggests that you should not be allowed to drive!

muddypaws · 08-07-2023 2:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821931#Comment_120821931

No, the road is not suitable for overtaking of anything, if it was a tractor you would be held up because you can't go past, so please what is the difference?

I would hope that the cyclists would do what I - and the tractor driver should do - keep going until there is a safe place to pull in and allow the faster traffic to pass.

I just don't understand why some drivers hate cyclists so much but other vehicles are an annoyance but not hated.

Spook_ie · 08-07-2023 2:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821892#Comment_120821892

I think what he actually said was that even when singled out you couldn't provide the requisite 1.5m of space ( I assume he would have been passing at a slower speed and therefore the space required legally was only 1.0 m ) and therefore the road was unsuitable for group rides, though if they had singled out I would have passed them as they were obviously aware of the car and were expecting a pass.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 2:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821954#Comment_120821954

So the cyclists did their best to facilitate the driver who now believes that they shouldn't be allowed to cycle on that road because there isn't room to pass. It ignores the fact that if they came up behind anyone on the road (in a car, tractor or whatever) then they still could not pass but it is the people on bikes that shouldn't be allowed use the road? I seem to have it fine! It's the entitled attitude that is rampant amongst so many people in this cointry when they sit behind a steering wheel!

Spook_ie · 08-07-2023 2:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821215#Comment_120821215

Not sure if the information you are after is in there but the EU is very good at allowing access (unpaid ) to their research articles

https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/drl.pdf

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 2:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821940#Comment_120821940

I wasn't driving. Thats the law. Are you saying its not? Make your point?

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 2:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821940#Comment_120821940

It looks like you ran out of road.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 2:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821998#Comment_120821998

I'm aware you weren't driving (despite you confirming it was your car that was used) but it's your opinion towards other road users I'm addressing.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 3:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822077#Comment_120822077

The fact is our government are making laws that are unsuitable for infastructure. My own personal view is a cyclist(s) cannot have more than half of the available space including the 1.5 metres. I expect it will be tested when there is a serious incident. I have driven in several countries abroad and never came accross the 1.5 metres i see around where i live. I live on a route used by cyclists, i also cycle abit but would not cycle in a group because of what i stated earlier. I did not say someone else driving my car, i kindof know the width of it.

enjoy your cycle

07Lapierre · 08-07-2023 4:06pm

As a species, we’re fucked if muppets like you are driving lethal weapons!

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 4:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822124#Comment_120822124

How much space would you give another car when overtaking? Your point that it is not fair if the cyclist is being given a safe overtaking space is negated when you consider that the width of the cyclist plus the space on their left and the safe overtaking space in their right would be much the same as the amount of space you would expect when someone is overtaking your 1.85m wide car (1.85m, funny enough, would be a similar width to a group of cyclists travelling two abreast) .

To state that the laws are unsuitable for the infrastructure, is a bit daft when you simply had insufficient room to overtake some people safely. I'm taking it for granted that a short distance up the road was an opportunity for you to pass them without it being dangerous.

The reality is that the 1.5m is a guideline and not enshrined with the law. What is enshrined in law relates to overtaking a cyclist that creates a danger or inconveniences them. Distance isn't part of it simply because it can be difficult to establish it accurately. The 1.0m or 1.5m is guidance offered by the state based on experience abroad, etc. So your thinking that it will be challenged is based on your misunderstanding of the law.

As for the safe passing distance abroad, other countries have this - it is possible that you were driving without knowing the local legislation. Given that you are unaware of the basics of the legislation here, are you sure that you know what it is in other countries? Plus, laws change over time. AFAIR, France have recently extended their safe passing legislation to say that a driver must ensure their car overtakes a cyclist by completely changing lane (as if you were overtaking another car).

Nonetheless, your posts today appear to be down to the fact that a group out on their bikes, travelling completely legally, slowed you down briefly and so you came on here to moan about it and make stupid demands about having them banned from certain roads. You wouldn't do the same for a group of people on horseback, would you?

As for the driver and the car: all I can go on is from what you tell us...

Secondly the road is 3 metres,my car is about 1.85 metre, add 1.5 for passing is 3.25 metres for required passing the road is not suitable for bikes and thats the law.

...and...

when we were passing the driver of the car was breaking the law.

So were you the person who overtook a group of cyclists despite admitting there wasn't sufficient safe space to do so?

Edit: typos corrected

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 4:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822412#Comment_120822412

Its a fcuk up to put signs that are not possible to maintain, the reality is this group of cyclists had no manners and are giving decent cyclists a bad name. The infastructure does not excist on the road i mention, simple as that. I thought all road signs were legal requirement, so a person cannot be charged with an offence which is good to know.

i know what i see abroad is not what i see here, a few years ago we were (just 2) were cycling in spain, a group of cycles said we should be in single file and we did it. road about the same as norman national routes in ireland.

The road i mention is completely unsuitable for groups of bikes but they have no regard for themselves and there have and will be accidents so let it happen.

You did not read my post as on this day i was not driving and i said that 2 times.

Ginger83 · 08-07-2023 4:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821931#Comment_120821931

I was refused planning permission previously on a road you describe and I quote one of the reasons

The road is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass without one vehicle moving in off the road, therefore the road is unsuitable for vehicular traffic.

You are actually saying the road you were on was not suitable for vehicles. If you were held up by a truck or tractor you'd have to wait so why should cyclists be any different? Do they have less right to use the road than you?

07Lapierre · 08-07-2023 4:54pm

Glad to hear you weren’t driving! Muppet!

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 5:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822516#Comment_120822516

Its a fcuk up to put signs that are not possible to maintain, the reality is this group of cyclists had no manners and are giving decent cyclists a bad name. The infastructure does not excist on the road i mention, simple as that. I thought all road signs were legal requirement, so a person cannot be charged with an offence which is good to know.

You/the person driving your car were the ones with no manners by allnappearances. You overtook a group of vulnerable road users despite knowing that it wasn't safe. Then you have the audacity to complain that they didn't get out of your way in a timely manner but they shouldnt have been on that road anyhow. The driver should not be allowed drive given this entitled and dangerous behaviour. If you weren't driving then your support for the driver's behaviour and yiur call for the removal of cyclists from these roads would suggest a similar removal from the roads would be called for. It is simply astonishing that someone can put forwards a suggestion so daft when you think about it - especially from someone who claims to cycle ("I'm a cyclist myself" 🙄)

i know what i see abroad is not what i see here, a few years ago we were (just 2) were cycling in spain, a group of cycles said we should be in single file and we did it. road about the same as norman national routes in ireland.

So you took to the roads in another country without looking up the local rules?

The law in Spain is that cycling two abreast is allowed except in poor visibility.

Would you drive abroad without looking up the local rules?

The road i mention is completely unsuitable for groups of bikes but they have no regard for themselves and there have and will be accidents so let it happen.

As I said, cyclists two abreast is about the same width as a car. Why is it ok for you to drive that narrow road but not ok for two cyclists to travel side by side? (Plus two abreast means a shorter overtake is required!). You seem angry because your journey was slowed due to other road users. You haven't answered my questions on whether you would have felt the same if they were other road user types so I assume bybomissikn that you wouldn't - you just don't like cyclists!

07Lapierre · 08-07-2023 5:24pm

You’re wasting your time Seth…this muppet is a classic example of why cyclists cycle two abreast! apogee87 has the intelligence of a frog spawn!

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 6:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821202#Comment_120821202

@apogee87 "this road is unsuitable for cyclists. Basically the road was built for bicycles 100 years ago and it was not upgraded."

This is an absolutely jaw dropping statement. A road was "built for bicycles" and has not been "upgraded" yet somehow has become unsuitable for cyclists? The only possible thought process that could lead to this conclusion is an absolutely massive sense of entitlement along the lines of 'only those behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle are entitled to get to their chosen destination'.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 7:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821931#Comment_120821931

@apogee87 "First of all cyclists should not be cycling 2 abreast in those conditions in my view for their own safety, remember the title of this thread is "cyclists safety."

I'm curious as to why you think that single file would be safer in this situation?

One of the most basic laws governing driving a car in Irelands is: "A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt within the distance which the driver can see to be clear."

Are you suggesting that the risk is that a driver will come on the cyclists from behind, travelling too fast to be able to stop, and will plough into the back of the cyclists, but if the cyclists were in single file the driver would be able to swerve around them? In which case surely you should be taking issue with the illegal (and life threatening) behaviour by the driver rather than the legal behaviour by the cyclists? In any case, you mentioned 15 to 17 cyclists, which in single file would be a train longer than two articulated trucks, and likely travelling at +/- 35km/h. An unplanned overtaking manoeuvre like that is illegal, and potentially lethal, given there is no time to properly evaluate the road ahead and whether another vehicle might be coming towards you.

It is prudent practice to take primary position, or take the lane, while on a bike, to ensure your own safety. This is endorsed by the RSA. I live on a road like the one you described and have to travel 2km before I get to a stretch with a footpath and a broken white line where it is legally permitted to overtake. I'll be well out from the edge approaching the multiple blind bends during those 2km in order to discourage drivers approaching from behind from doing a reckless/illegal overtake. I judge that the risk of being rear-ended is less than the risk of having a driver meeting an oncoming car on a blind bend while overtaking me and instinctively pulling left and crushing me against the wall to avoid a head-on collision with another car. A group of cyclists choosing to cycle 2 abreast are achieving a similar effect as a single cyclist riding in primary position.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 7:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822516#Comment_120822516

@apogee87 Its a fcuk up to put signs that are not possible to maintain, the reality is this group of cyclists had no manners and are giving decent cyclists a bad name.

So a group of 15-17 road users went out of their way to facilitate 2 other road users to pass them safely, but it's the 15-17 road users who have no manners? You do realise that legally they could have just sat in formation and pedalled along until you came to a place where you could pass legally, even if that was 5km distant? They didn't do that. They went out of their way to accommodate you.

And the road user whose time is so precious, that (s)he believes taking 30 seconds to pass other road users safely is so unacceptable that the other road users should be prohibited from travelling on that road completely, is the mannerly one? That's the kind of logic I'd expect from Mr. Topsy-Turvy in the Mr. Men children's books, not from a grown adult with a driving license.

@apogee87 I thought all road signs were legal requirement, so a person cannot be charged with an offence which is good to know.

That's an awful lot of ignorance in one short sentence for someone who presumably passed a driving test to allow them to drive on Irish roads. Regulatory signs are generally round with a white background and red border. The ones that are diamond shaped and yellow with black markings are warning signs. There are three main offences which could apply to overtaking someone on a bicycle dangerously.

Careless driving
Dangerous driving
Overtaking or attempting to overtake in a way that would endanger or cause inconvenience to a cyclist

None of these are defined in specific detail as to what constitutes an offence. It's down to the judgement of a Garda initially, and a judge if it is a serious offence or is disputed by the driver. But the Gardai and the Courts will place some reliance on guidance from the RSA. The RSA guidance is that 1m is the safe overtaking distance in a 50 km/h zone and 1.5m is a safe overtaking distance in zones with higher speed limits. So, if a driver flew past at speed at distance noticeably less than the 1m/1.5m specified, then it is likely a judge would view that as sufficient evidence for a Careless Driving conviction (the Gardai seem to prefer that charge to the cyclist specific one). But if, as in the case you described, the overtaking manoeuvre was coordinated with the group of cyclists in order to be done as safely as possible, there is almost zero chance a Garda or a judge would consider any offence had been committed, even if it did mean that the driver passed more closely than the specified guidance.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 8:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822660#Comment_120822660

It is bizarre unless @apogee87 Is deliberately trolling. That's someone can be so completely wrong when it comes to a simple piece of safe driving knowledge is scary.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 8:53pm

thanks for advise as i learned today that the same rules apply to cyclists and it applies to the centre of the road so if the cyclist is not obaying the rules they are the law-breakers as is what happened in this instance. As stated earlier normal road rules apply. A group of cyclists have half the road and the vechicle has the other half. If this happens to me in the future i will simply breeze past.

Thanks for the valuable advise...

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 8:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120822560#Comment_120822560

yer losin ti.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 8:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823464#Comment_120823464

Again, you're posting rubbish.

The cyclists did nothing wrong based on what you have told us. Nothing!

You have told us that the road was 3m wide and your car is 1.85m wide yet you spout crap about them breaking the law for the group being wider than half of the road. Do you actually read what you post?

Ok, humour me: what exact law did they break (bearing in mind your demonstration of your knowledge of the road usage laws both here and in Spain so far in this thread has been non-existent)!

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 9:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823464#Comment_120823464

OK, I'll bite.

Which rule "applies to the centre of the road" and also applies to cyclists?

Which rule were the cyclists not 'obaying' (sic) which made them 'law-breakers'?

What law or rule are you relying on when you state that "A group of cyclists have half the road and the vechicle has the other half." and can you point us towards either the specific piece of legislation or the relevant section in the rules of the road?

When you say "If this happens to me in the future i will simply breeze past." are you seriously arguing that, if you mistakenly believe another road user is breaking the law, you then magically become entitled to also break the law and endanger another road user?

Most people get the message that 'two wrongs don't make a right' while they're still a toddler. If you somehow think the opposite applies while you are in charge of a potentially lethal piece of machinery, then God help anyone who has the misfortune to encounter you on the road. And I sincerely hope that your reference to being in your car while it was being driven by someone else does not mean that the someone else was a learner driver, and you were the accompanying licensed driver they were supposed to rely on for sound guidance.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 9:23pm

it has been set

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823520#Comment_120823520

i will only pass when it safe but i will ensure as far as possiblethey do not take up more than half of the available space.

There is court precident for this in vehicle traffic.

It may be there is special rules which i thought until today there was with 1.5 metre guidline which i thought was rule but i was informed here that this is just a guideline.

So same rules for all roadusers. great.

There were at least a dozen in this group so they went to different toddler school than you did.

07Lapierre · 08-07-2023 9:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823467#Comment_120823467

"it"

07Lapierre · 08-07-2023 9:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823423#Comment_120823423

he must be trolling! ... nobody is that stupid! :0

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 9:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823476#Comment_120823476

Each motorised vechicle is entitled to have half of the available road space, there is court precident for this which i am aware of.

Is a bicycle entitled to have more space than a say truck?

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2023 9:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823595#Comment_120823595

Can you point us towards one of the court cases that you are referring to because it really does sound like you're making stuff up (not very good stuff at that!)?

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 9:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823586#Comment_120823586

a dozen cyclists werethat stupid.

thanks for valuable advice.

trolling is that what its called?

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 9:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823595#Comment_120823595

So you've gone from not having a clue about some of the most basic aspects of the Rules of the Road and Road Traffic legislation to now being an expert on an obscure legal precedent which makes no sense at all the way you describe it?

Please point us towards this precedent, if it actually exists....

I mean, the way you describe it, if I meet a truck on my 3m wide road while I'm driving to work, then the truck has to magically shrink from it's actual width of 2.5m to 1.5m to allow me my allotted 50% of the road space. And you're basically saying that, because your car took up more than 50% of the available road space in your example, you had no right to even be on that road.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 9:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823623#Comment_120823623

You've completely failed to explain what the dozen cyclists (no longer 15-17?) were doing that was unsafe or 'stupid' and why it was unsafe. What were the potential unsafe consequences of their actions? Please explain.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 9:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823571#Comment_120823571

@apogee87 So same rules for all roadusers. great.

@apogee87 Each motorised vechicle is entitled to have half of the available road space

Come on, both of those statements can't be true. It can't be the same rules for all road users but at the same time there's a different rule for 'motorised vehicles' which people on bikes can't avail of.

Although the reality is actually that neither of those statements are true, at least not in the meaning you are seeking to apply.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 9:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823673#Comment_120823673

I said 12/15 taking up 2/3 of avaiklable space obstructing traffic which is an offence for cars but not for cyclists according to boards.ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823627#Comment_120823627

The case i mention is about 20 years old where therw was a minoraccident between a truck and a car. the judge ruled that the car was ebtitled to half the road and ruled against the truck driver, it was a insurance case.

i was cycling then and people thought i was mad, so its really all my fault.

pleasant Co. · 08-07-2023 9:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823595#Comment_120823595

A bicycle is entitled to the same space as any other road going vehicle, including a say truck.

Could you point to the alleged court precident for which you're aware of? it sounds like an inaccurate interpretation based on what you've said so far.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 10:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823688#Comment_120823688

Are you saying that a bicycle needs more road-space than a vehicle?

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 10:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823695#Comment_120823695

OK, let's pretend such a case exists, if it's insurance then it's civil law case and has no bearing on potential Road Traffic convictions.

If it exists, presumably it was a situation where a car met a truck coming towards them on the road and the truck was wider than half the width of the road, so a judge took that into account when awarding damages. But if the Gardai got involved and wished to press charges they could still both be done for Careless Driving because they were travelling too fast to avoid a collision.

But do you really believe that an insurance case like that would mean that you now have carte blanche to try to squeeze past any slower moving wide vehicle you come up behind on a narrow road? And that if you make contact with them as you squeeze past a judge would say that it was the other driver's fault for having a large vehicle? I'd like to see you try that with a €300k silage cutter on a country road. Your insurance company would love you.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 10:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823715#Comment_120823715

No, I didn't say that. And nothing I've written could be reasonably interpreted that way.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 10:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823730#Comment_120823730

Bad example as silage cutter is principally a land vehicle and has a duty to make way for normal vehicle traffic.

There is recent court precident for this where a bus driver lost his license for a year for holding up traffic.

The bus driver said to the judge he had the same rights to the road, he lost his license for a year.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 10:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823741#Comment_120823741

Whether you like the example or not, do you really believe that the precent you are 'aware of' but can't point us to, entitles you to try to overtake wide vehicles on narrow roads and then have the other driver pick up the costs if you collide, if they happen to be wider than 50% of the width of the road?

And, even if you do believe that, do you really think this somehow exempts you from complying with Road Traffic legislation and you and another vehicle being wider than 50% of the width of the road means you can't be prosecuted for any interactions you have with them?

And, if you actually believe that, do you really think it then extends further to allowing you to endanger vulnerable road users, and make you immune from a dangerous overtaking prosecution?

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 10:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823754#Comment_120823754

This thread is cyclists responsibility for their own safety, if the cycylists are taking over more than half the road and therefore obstructing traffic they are endangering themselves. Thats what i am saying, they are not proper road users.

Weepsie · 08-07-2023 10:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823770#Comment_120823770

Cyclists are traffic, not an obstruction. If you think they are you're not fit to be driving.

They are right there in the road traffic act.

Unrealistic · 08-07-2023 10:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823770#Comment_120823770

So rather than answer any of the questions to clarify how relevant this 'precedent' is, or even just to clarify how relevant you believe it to be, you're going back to clap trap that completely misunderstands the basics of traffic legislation and the rights and responsibilities of all road users. Well done!

Weepsie · 08-07-2023 10:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823595#Comment_120823595

Find this case. Also it's flawed. If a cyclist is in a space, it is therefore not available space and this entirely bogus entitlement is nonsense.

apogee87 · 08-07-2023 10:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823775#Comment_120823775

i agree cyclist are traffic and need to obahy the same rules as vehicle traffic. The case i mention the cyclists were causing an obstruction. Its that simple.

Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

Comments

Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety warning infractions given liberally for trolling etc