Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 12:29am

dubscottie wrote: »

Ive had problems on induction loops with a motorbike. People think there is a "pad" when infact only weight on the wire will change the lights. Good example is up the road from my house, where parked cars stop traffic from sitting on the wire and are waiting ages.

Induction isn't weight

Wiki

Vehicle detection
An example of the Inductance loop installed in the road for cars and bikes.
An example of the Inductance loop installed in the road for cars and bikes
Schematic of such a detector

Vehicle detection loops, called inductive-loop traffic detectors, can detect vehicles passing or arriving at a certain point, for instance approaching a traffic light or in motorway traffic. An insulated, electrically conducting loop is installed in the pavement. The electronics unit transmits energy into the wire loops at frequencies between 10 kHz to 200 kHz, depending on the model. The inductive-loop system behaves as a tuned electrical circuit in which the loop wire and lead-in cable are the inductive elements. When a vehicle passes over the loop or is stopped within the loop, the vehicle induces eddy currents in the wire loops, which decrease their inductance. The decreased inductance actuates the electronics unit output relay or solid-state optically isolated output, which sends a pulse to the traffic signal controller signifying the passage or presence of a vehicle.[2] Parking structures for automobiles may use inductive loops to track traffic (occupancy) in and out or may be used by access gates or ticketing systems to detect vehicles while others use Parking guidance and information systems. Railways may use an induction loop to detect the passage of trains past a given point, as an electronic treadle.

The relatively crude nature of the loop's structure means that only metal masses above a certain size are capable of triggering the relay. This is good in that the loop does not thus produce very many "false positive" triggers (say, for example, by a pedestrian crossing the loop with a pocket full of loose metal change) but it sometimes also means that bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles stopped at such intersections may never be detected by them (and therefore risk being ignored by the switch/signal). Most loops can be manually adjusted to consistently detect the presence of scooters and motorcycles at the least.

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 12:38am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In this situation it seems that the traffic signals are configured only for motorised vehicles, with pedestrians and cyclists expected to cope as best they can. Did you notice the induction loops? Apparently motorised vehicles are provided with automated means to trigger the lights whereas cyclists and pedestrians are left with nothing.

You originally claimed the elderly cyclists were going "the wrong way" and breaking road traffic law.

By law cyclists are traffic. If the cyclists had the green light in this situation then they were proceeding legally.

Looking out for (elderly) cyclists is fairly straightforward for motorists who drive with due care and attention.

Providing for (elderly) cyclists and pedestrians is fairly straightforward for any local authority that gives a damn about anything other than facilitating motorised traffic.

I asked this earlier but got no response. If you were a cyclist and you came to this bridge and the light was green for you to proceed, what would you do?

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 1:23am

bigar wrote: »

Amen to that!

Thanks, I will go there and measure the time the lights are green. Will be nice addition to my black book with crossings where the time between green is to short for cyclist to cross safely.

I may even see the two old cyclists. They do not even know they are now minor celebrities.

Just remember it's actually a T Junction being controlled by lights, not just a bridge, there are lights on the exit from the station according to googlemaps

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Leixlip+train+station&hl=en&ll=53.373319,-6.485544&spn=0.000925,0.002411&sll=53.383252,-6.422786&sspn=0.003724,0.009645&hq=train+station&hnear=Leixlip,+County+Kildare&t=m&fll=53.373508,-6.484707&fspn=0.000931,0.002411&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.373175,-6.485594&panoid=wBNeKh721pvO1t0RSDnYLQ&cbp=12,164.36,,0,0

Surveyor11 · 03-09-2013 8:50am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why is it fair enough to say that motorists don't expect to see cyclists?

The OP came on here claiming that two elderly cyclists were ignoring the RoTR.

The reality seems to be that the traffic signals in question are configured for motor vehicles only. Note the induction loops at either end.

Look again: the footpath is NOT continuous, and there are no pedestrian crossings facilities on either end.

Depending on direction of travel, a pedestrian or dismounted cyclist has to access the footpath without the aid of a pedestrian crossing or come off the footpath into traffic on the opposite side.

Why can't the traffic signals just be configured to give cyclists enough time to cross legally and safely? Why can pedestrian crossing facilities not be provided at either end?

Well, everyone seems to be experts on the ROTR here. From said document (my emphasis):

"The skills which are expected of all road users, but drivers in particular include a positive and considerate attitude to other road users particularly vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians, children and the elderly, the ability to act responsibly, the ability to anticipate and react to hazards, good concentration, and a good level of expertise in the skill of driving. Driving is a life skill and therefore requires lifelong learning."

I am 99% sure the path is continuous - it starts at Confey GAA club and continues up and over the bridge and leads to Leixlip village ultimately - you have to cross at the entrance to the station. The elderly cyclists as mentioned by the OP probably set off in good faith at a green light, it changes say 30 seconds or so later so they found themselves facing oncoming traffic. The onus is still on the driver to anticipate this hazard - when driving, I would never drive into a situation I was 100% of at the other side, but maybe that's just me.

If people are getting their panties in a twist about elderly people breaking red lights as they see it, the only option is to time the lights for the slowest user i.e an elderly cyclist. I'm sure drivers will be grateful and appreciate that scenario. :rolleyes:

No Pants · 03-09-2013 10:13am

dukedalton wrote: »

I asked this earlier but got no response. If you were a cyclist and you came to this bridge and the light was green for you to proceed, what would you do?

I'd proceed if the way was clear. Is this a trick question?

ThisRegard · 03-09-2013 10:20am

KwackerJack wrote: »

Oh and what do cyclists think about pedestrians on roads???

Judging by the lack of threads appearing everytime it happens I can only conclude that they just cycle around them and get on with life.

gobnaitolunacy · 03-09-2013 10:32am

dukedalton wrote: »

Permission to rename the thread: The stupid, dangerous thing I saw cyclists do today.

Rename it.... Everyone who uses the road is an idiot (except me):cool:

galwaycyclist · 03-09-2013 10:35am

dukedalton wrote: »

Surely the example I gave would be one such occasion? I suggested the cyclists in my case dismount and cross safely on the footpath. Would this not be better than continuing on a bridge you know you probably won't be able to cross in time, just because you've passed a green light? I think more cyclists should follow the advice of this cycling instructor of yours.

Given that I may be the cycling instructor in question I perhaps should answer this. The advice to dismount and walk would generally apply to complex junctions where, in the cyclists personal judgement, the nature of the traffic is beyond their current level of confidence or physical ability to cope with. This is a dynamic judgement and can depend on the time of day. The advice does not apply to using narrow roads which are not complex but comparatively simple situations.

This is not a legal opinion but I would assume that once you have entered a section of road on a green light then you are lawfully present on that section of road until you leave it. The fact that other drivers get a green light in the intervening time does not confer special privilege on them with regard to other road users. Getting a green light after somebody else certainly does not confer a permission to behave recklessly of the safety of others who entered the road before you.

As regards the process for dealing with oncoming traffic on narrow roads while cycling, the situation is simple. If the pinch point is caused by an obstruction on the cyclists side, then the cyclist yields. If it is caused by an obstruction on the other side then the oncoming motorist must yield.

Once two parties encounter each other within a narrow stretch the process is simple and is the same as it would be for two cars. If on a bike you maintain your road position - normally in the centre of the lane - and slow down. You make eye contact with the oncoming driver and wait for them to slow down as well. Once you have both stopped or slowed down sufficiently you both then negotiate your way past each other at moderate speed.

If on a bike you should avoid pulling in or getting out of the way immediately if the oncoming driver might take that as an invitation to proceed in a narrow gap without slowing down or altering course.

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 10:51am

dukedalton wrote: »

I asked this earlier but got no response. If you were a cyclist and you came to this bridge and the light was green for you to proceed, what would you do?

Me personally, proceed with caution just like I would with any other light.

Bearing in mind that I don't know this junction (it'd be my first time on this road, I have no local knowledge), I just know that I'm passing a green light, what would you expect me to do?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This is not a legal opinion but I would assume that once you have entered a section of road on a green light then you are lawfully present on that section of road until you leave it. The fact that other drivers get a green light in the intervening time does not confer special privilege on them with regard to other road users. Getting a green light after somebody else certainly does not confer a permission to behave recklessly of the safety of others who entered the road before you.

Extending this hypothetical further, what happens if you're on a major dual carriageway in your car, stopped at a red light.

The light goes green and you start to drive away, but before you can cross the junction your car breaks down and won't move.

While you're stuck there your light goes red and the traffic perpendicular to you gets a green light.

What, if any, rights do they have with regard to right of way over your vehicle?

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 11:04am

No Pants wrote: »

I'd proceed if the way was clear. Is this a trick question?

Knowing that you would in all likelyhood meet cars coming against you at or near the top of the hill? Rather you than me.

Personally, I would dismount and cross safely on the footpath. That would seem to me to be the common sense solution.

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 11:09am

dukedalton wrote: »

Knowing that you would in all likelyhood meet cars coming against you at or near the top of the hill? Rather you than me.

....aaaand if you don't know this issue exists??

Cookie_Monster · 03-09-2013 11:10am

dukedalton wrote: »

Knowing that you would in all likelyhood meet cars coming against you at or near the top of the hill? Rather you than me.

yep, they're unlikely to be speeding (unless of course they're completely incompetent), the road is wide enough to pass as well anyway. on a bike you are also about 5-6ft off the road surface so will be visible well in advance of the crest.

dukedalton wrote: »

Personally, I would dismount and cross safely on the footpath. That would seem to me to be the common sense solution.

no, that's pandering to the perceived risk and the notion that cars have more right of way than cyclists.

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 11:16am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yep, they're unlikely to be speeding (unless of course they're completely incompetent), the road is wide enough to pass as well anyway. on a bike you are also about 5-6ft off the road surface so will be visible well in advance of the crest.

no, that's pandering to the perceived risk and the notion that cars have more right of way than cyclists.

So you're happy to take the risk of cycling against traffic? Fair enough. Not something I would think is wise. Just hope you don't make too big a dent in my car

galwaycyclist · 03-09-2013 11:27am

dukedalton wrote: »

So you're happy to take the risk of cycling against traffic? Fair enough. Not something I would think is wise. Just hope you don't make too big a dent in my car

Cyclists are traffic. It is difficult to imagine a situation where any driver or cyclist could expect that they should never have to meet another driver or cyclist in a narrow gap.

The only way I could imagine it is if that person hired out a race track for their own personal use and confined their driving, or cycling, to that.

Cookie_Monster · 03-09-2013 11:30am

dukedalton wrote: »

So you're happy to take the risk of cycling against traffic? Fair enough. Not something I would think is wise. Just hope you don't make too big a dent in my car

why would I be cycling against traffic? I still hold the right of way on the road and traffic against me is required to stop, just like if I was a car or truck or flock of sheep

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 11:54am

dukedalton wrote: »

So you're happy to take the risk of cycling against traffic? Fair enough. Not something I would think is wise. Just hope you don't make too big a dent in my car

....aaaand if I don't know this issue exists, what do you expect me/you to do??

monument · 03-09-2013 12:10pm

dukedalton wrote: »

So you're happy to take the risk of cycling against traffic? Fair enough. Not something I would think is wise. Just hope you don't make too big a dent in my car

This is the big problem with your point from the start -- you're getting it all wrong: The two cyclists were not breaking the law and they were not cycling against traffic.

It's the interesting thing about threads on here about cyclist -- when we get more info of the complainant, it's more often the case that the cyclist did nothing wrong.

It points to the idea that motorists perceive cyclists to be doing something illegal, when often it's not the case (even if sometimes to often it is).

Then you have a large percentage of motorists who think cyclists should be on the footpath (and out of their way), while cycling on the footpath is one of the main complaints about cyclists from others! No matter what cyclists do somebody seems to be annoyed.

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 12:23pm

monument wrote: »

This is the big problem with your point from the start -- you're getting it all wrong: The two cyclists were not breaking the law and they were not cycling against traffic.

It's the interesting thing about threads on here about cyclist -- when we get more info of the complainant, it's more often the case that the cyclist did nothing wrong.

It points to the idea that motorists perceive cyclists to be doing something illegal, when often it's not the case (even if sometimes to often it is).

Then you have a large percentage of motorists who think cyclists should be on the footpath (and out of their way), while cycling on the footpath is one of the main complaints about cyclists from others! No matter what cyclists do somebody seems to be annoyed.

OK, leaving aside legality for a moment, do you think cycling up a one lane bridge knowing you're likely to meet motorised traffic coming the opposite way is a wise thing to do? If I was a cyclist I certainly wouldn't.

Your big problem, and where you're getting it wrong, is that you are fixating on the technicalities of the rules to the detriment of common sense. A little more self awareness from some of our most vulnerable road users would go a long way.

Surveyor11 · 03-09-2013 12:29pm

dukedalton wrote: »

OK, leaving aside legality for a moment, do you think cycling up a one lane bridge knowing you're likely to meet motorised traffic coming the opposite way is a wise thing to do? If I was a cyclist I certainly wouldn't.

Your big problem, and where you're getting it wrong, is that you are fixating on the technicalities of the rules to the detriment of common sense. A little more self awareness from some of our most vulnerable road users would go a long way.

I cycle up and over this bridge without any issues, I keep left just in case the odd clown coming the other way breaks the red, which is not that uncommon.

Per the ROR, both parties should proceed with caution - I certainly don't blast up and over that hill when I'm driving.

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 12:34pm

dukedalton wrote: »

OK, leaving aside legality for a moment, do you think cycling up a one lane bridge knowing you're likely to meet motorised traffic coming the opposite way is a wise thing to do? If I was a cyclist I certainly wouldn't.

What if you don't know?

Why do you keep ignoring the question, or does it just not suit your rant?

TheChizler · 03-09-2013 12:35pm

dukedalton wrote: »

OK, leaving aside legality for a moment, do you think cycling up a one lane bridge knowing you're likely to meet motorised traffic coming the opposite way is a wise thing to do? If I was a cyclist I certainly wouldn't.

You could replace 'bridge' with half the country-roads in the country.

You could ask do you think driving up a one way bridge knowing you're likely to meet motorised traffic coming the opposite way is a wise thing to do.

Both road users need to be aware that they might come across other traffic and behave appropriately.

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 12:45pm

AltAccount wrote: »

What if you don't know?

Why do you keep ignoring the question, or does it just not suit your rant?

It's very straightforward: By looking at the distance and incline, and by knowing your own capabilities, you should know. With the bridge in question, I would not attempt to cycle across it myself.

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 12:49pm

dukedalton wrote: »

It's very straightforward: By looking at the distance and incline, and by knowing your own capabilities, you should know. With the bridge in question, I would not attempt to cycle across it myself.

I'm a fairly strong cyclist and wouldn't be put off by distance or incline.

How am I supposed to keep myself from making a dent in your car (your words) if I don't know the traffic light sequence is too short to allow me to traverse the bridge before the opposing traffic is given a green light?

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 12:51pm

AltAccount wrote: »

I'm a fairly strong cyclist and wouldn't be put off by distance or incline.

How am I supposed to keep myself off your bonnet (your words) if I don't know the traffic light sequence is too short to allow me to traverse the bridge before the opposing traffic is given a green light?

Fair play to you, but if it was me I'd err on the side of caution, and I think the cyclists in the case I've described would have done well to do the same.

monument · 03-09-2013 12:55pm

dukedalton wrote: »

OK, leaving aside legality for a moment, do you think cycling up a one lane bridge knowing you're likely to meet motorised traffic coming the opposite way is a wise thing to do? If I was a cyclist I certainly wouldn't.

Your big problem, and where you're getting it wrong, is that you are fixating on the technicalities of the rules to the detriment of common sense. A little more self awareness from some of our most vulnerable road users would go a long way.

A little more "common sense" from motorists who know the timing on the lights is wrong might work well and they would drive very slowly over the top of the bridge.

If there was more "common sense" in the first place the bridge would never have such a road layout and even if the designers lacked "common sense", than surely daily users of the bridge would have the "common sense" to complain until something was changed.

The problem is that "common sense" is not common at all and the phrase is redundant or was never of any use.

I'm sure it suits for you to brush everything people here are saying to you as if it's all only "technicalities" but it's important to understand why the cyclists are not breaking the rules: in this case, it's because the road layout should not be able to pass a road safety audit as the design is not fit for use.

But as somebody else said: as long as motorists are not going too fast over a blind crest, the danger here sounds a bit overblown. In that context and if motorists are doing too fast: there could be more risk crossing over to the footpath and dismounting and then crossding again on the other side and remounting.

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 12:55pm

dukedalton wrote: »

Fair play to you, but if it was me I'd err on the side of caution, and I think the cyclists in the case I've described would have done well to do the same.

What caution? How am I supposed to know there's a danger ?

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 1:00pm

AltAccount wrote: »

What caution? How am I supposed to know there's a danger ?

God almighty, will I draw you a picture?

The danger is cars coming the other way (your clues: the traffic lights and the narrow road).The caution is me trying to avoid coming into contact with them.

You know, the basics of self preservation :rolleyes:

Surveyor11 · 03-09-2013 1:04pm

haz·ard
/ˈhazərd/
Noun - A danger or risk.
Synonyms - risk - peril - jeopardy - chance

The above is courtesy of google and edited for brevity. It's about driving and anticipating hazard. I would expect the unexpected whether driving or cycling over this crest. I cannot see beyond it in both modes of transport, so I approach with anticipation.

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 1:43pm

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I cycle up and over this bridge without any issues, I keep left just in case the odd clown coming the other way breaks the red, which is not that uncommon.

Per the ROR, both parties should proceed with caution - I certainly don't blast up and over that hill when I'm driving.

Going back to the two gentlemen who most people say may not have broken a red light ( I happen to agree that there isn't enough information available to tell if anyone broke a red light ) why do you immediately ratify the car driver as a clown who may well be in exactly the same situation? After all you can't tell from where you are if he has/had a green light or not

AltAccount · 03-09-2013 1:53pm

dukedalton wrote: »

God almighty, will I draw you a picture?

The danger is cars coming the other way (your clues: the traffic lights and the narrow road).The caution is me trying to avoid coming into contact with them.

You know, the basics of self preservation :rolleyes:

For all your sarcasm you're really struggling with the word "how"...

galwaycyclist · 03-09-2013 1:53pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Going back to the two gentlemen who most people say may not have broken a red light ( I happen to agree there ) why do you immediately ratify the car driver as a clown who may well be in exactly the same situation? After all you can't tell from where you are if he has/had a green light or not

Its not because the OP was a car driver. Its because by their own admission they were driving at a speed where they had no chance of stopping.

Edit: It is not the form of transport that is being questioned it is road user behaviour.

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 2:04pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Its not because the OP was a car driver. Its because by their own admission they were driving at a speed where they had no chance of stopping.

Edit: It is not the form of transport that is being questioned it is road user behaviour.

What has the OP to do with "Clowns" breaking red lights in

Originally Posted by Surveyor11 I keep left just in case the odd clown coming the other way breaks the red, which is not that uncommon.

galwaycyclist · 03-09-2013 2:08pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

What has the OP to do with "Clowns" breaking red lights in

I don't know if you read the original post instead of asking questions now then you would see that according to the OP they, themselves entered the road on green. Is this another circular question game?

overshoot · 03-09-2013 2:13pm

dukedalton wrote: »

God almighty, will I draw you a picture?

The danger is cars coming the other way (your clues: the traffic lights and the narrow road).The caution is me trying to avoid coming into contact with them.

You know, the basics of self preservation :rolleyes:

iv been flicking though this thread from time to time this morning and ur argument is really terrible. What should everyone stay at home for self preservation? Do people avoid following a road as is their right as some lad might be going too fast for his surroundings?
The fault is with you and you alone for driving too fast, stop trying to pin it on the cyclists... A car could have been there for some reason, being lower than cyclists, you would have had the same issues, should everyone stay off it incase their drive fails... You know for self preservation? should tractors stay off it?

A green light means proceed with caution if it is safe to do so, not the way is clear go go go! it may be time to come to terms with that. Also caution means anticipating hazards, awareness to your surroundings, not just trying to avoid coming into contact with hazards

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 2:25pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I don't know if you read the original post instead of asking questions now then you would see that according to the OP they, themselves entered the road on green. Is this another circular question game?

No this is a why are the two gentlemen cyclists not "Clowns" where as the motorists apparently are, is this too hard to see?

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I cycle up and over this bridge without any issues, I keep left just in case the odd clown coming the other way breaks the red, which is not that uncommon.

Per the ROR, both parties should proceed with caution - I certainly don't blast up and over that hill when I'm driving.

ThisRegard · 03-09-2013 2:28pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

No this is a why are the two gentlemen cyclists not "Clowns" where as the motorists apparently are, is this too hard to see?

The motorist in his what-if/just-in-case case broke a red light, the two kind gentlemen didn't necessarily.

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 2:34pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

The motorist in his what-if/just-in-case case broke a red light, the two kind gentlemen didn't necessarily.

Neither did the motorists in Surveyer1's post necessarily break a red light, there is insufficient evidence available to qualify that statement, so why are they clowns but two elderly gentlemen aren't?

TheChizler · 03-09-2013 2:43pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Neither did the motorists in Surveyer1's post necessarily break a red light, there is insufficient evidence available to qualify that statement, so why are they clowns but two elderly gentlemen aren't?

He very clearly did state that it would be a clown breaking the light.

galwaycyclist · 03-09-2013 2:44pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Neither did the motorists in Surveyer1's post necessarily break a red light, there is insufficient evidence available to qualify that statement, so why are they clowns but two elderly gentlemen aren't?

Ah yes we have been talking across each other slightly - thanks for the clarification above.

However does Surveyer1 actually specify the term "motorist" in their observation that people who break red lights are "clowns"?

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 2:47pm

TheChizler wrote: »

He very clearly did state that it would be a clown breaking the light.

But that's the point you can't tell from the information available if they have or haven't got a red/green light as the other lights are no longer visible to you

So in summary if it's a cyclist they might have an excuse ( agreed ) but if it's a motorist they are clowns, seems to be the argument now

TheChizler · 03-09-2013 2:50pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

But that's the point you can't tell from the information available if they have or haven't got a red/green light as the other lights are no longer visible to you

So in summary if it's a cyclist they might have an excuse ( agreed ) but if it's a motorist they are clowns, seems to be the argument now

They never specified the type of vehicle either, the only person here inferring that motorists are clowns is you. Why do you hate motorists?

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 2:50pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ah yes we have been talking across each other slightly - thanks for the clarification above.

However does Surveyer1 actually specify the term "motorist" in their observation that people who break red lights are "clowns"?

TheChizler wrote: »

They never specified the type of vehicle either, the only person here inferring that motorists are clowns is you.<snipped irrelevant comment>

True, but if he were referring to cyclists then the two in the OP would be clowns to, something which I still wouldn't agree with as there is insufficient evidence to back up the claim either way

ThisRegard · 03-09-2013 3:54pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Neither did the motorists in Surveyer1's post necessarily break a red light, there is insufficient evidence available to qualify that statement, so why are they clowns but two elderly gentlemen aren't?

Don't think it could be any clearer ?

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I cycle up and over this bridge without any issues, I keep left just in case the odd clown coming the other way breaks the red, which is not that uncommon.

Surveyor11 · 03-09-2013 4:05pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Don't think it could be any clearer ?

A 'clown' in my book is someone who does something clownish. Applies equally to cyclists, motorists and pedestrians

dukedalton · 03-09-2013 4:42pm

overshoot wrote: »

iv been flicking though this thread from time to time this morning and ur argument is really terrible. What should everyone stay at home for self preservation? Do people avoid following a road as is their right as some lad might be going too fast for his surroundings?
The fault is with you and you alone for driving too fast, stop trying to pin it on the cyclists... A car could have been there for some reason, being lower than cyclists, you would have had the same issues, should everyone stay off it incase their drive fails... You know for self preservation? should tractors stay off it?

A green light means proceed with caution if it is safe to do so, not the way is clear go go go! it may be time to come to terms with that. Also caution means anticipating hazards, awareness to your surroundings, not just trying to avoid coming into contact with hazards

Hard to make out most of that. It's hard to engage in a meaningful discussion if the other person's argument features such poor punctuation.

Surveyor11 · 03-09-2013 4:57pm

dukedalton wrote: »

Hard to make out most of that. It's hard to engage in a meaningful discussion if the other person's argument features such poor punctuation.

Made sense to me anyway. Agree with those points - anticipating hazards is key for all road users, particularly motorists towards more vulnerable users

Skrynesaver · 03-09-2013 5:29pm

KwackerJack wrote: »

OK so we all practically stop going around a corner just in case??

1 persons judgement about cornering speed is obviously different than another but generally most vehicles will get around at a safe speed but when a bicycle is doing 15 miles and hour no matter how slow the car is going its going to cause serous harm if that driver cannot stop as there are 2 rows of bikes covering the entire road!

Oh so I am a dangerous driver yet you cycle 2 abreast on a main road where vehicles are travelling twice or 3 times your speed?

Say I slow down to 30 mph on a 60 mph road just 'in-case' a group of Sunday cyclist are riding 2 abreast on a bend, the another car travelling at 60 slams into my rear causing me to hit the cyclists.; Well the car behind is at fault yes but I would be partially to blame for going way to slow because a group of ignorant cyclists want to own the whole road even thought the bike's are taking up inches instead of feet!

It makes no odds if I am travelling at 100 mph snorting coke off the dash, what matters is that you all know that cars wont give way so why the bloody hell do you get in the way??

You do get that they're speed limits, not targets, yes?

Spook_ie · 03-09-2013 7:12pm

Surveyor11 wrote: »

A 'clown' in my book is someone who does something clownish. Applies equally to cyclists, motorists and pedestrians

But regardless of the class of road user, at the crest of the bridge you wouldn't be able to tell if they broke a red light or not, the only place where you would be able to see two sets of lights and therefore catagoricly state they went through a red light would be at the set by the station exit, so why are they clowns?

monument · 03-09-2013 7:47pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

But regardless of the class of road user, at the crest of the bridge you wouldn't be able to tell if they broke a red light or not, the only place where you would be able to see two sets of lights and therefore catagoricly state they went through a red light would be at the set by the station exit, so why are they clowns?

No more! Please!

He'd be able to know that the odd motorist breaks the traffic light by traveling towards the light in the same direction as the odd car -- which would not be a mammoth task for any even irregular user of any junction in the country.

Get over your motorist vs cyclist obsession - the vast, vast majority of Irish cyclists are also motorists.

limklad · 03-09-2013 8:10pm

dukedalton wrote: »

Two incidents in the space of half a mile this morning:

1. I came up to a traffic light controlled bridge. With the light green for me, I proceeded up the bridge. As I came to the crest of the bridge I was met by two elderly cyclists going the wrong way.

Did you report this to the gardai of your suspicion that the cyclist are cycling the wrong way?

dukedalton wrote:

Had I been five yards further up the bridge I would have had no chance to stop. There was a footpath on the bridge, which clearly didn't feel the need to use.

No cyclist cannot cycle on Footpaths just like drivers on motor vechicles.

Use of footways

15.—(1) A driver shall not drive wholly or partly along or across a footway.

(2) This bye-law does not apply to a pram, an invalid carriage not mechanically propelled, or a vehicle being driven across a footway (either to a roadway from a place adjacent to the footway, or from a roadway to such a place).
use of cycle tracks

16.—(1) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) shall not drive wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

(2) This bye-law does not apply to a vehicle which is being driven across a cycle track, either to or from a place adjacent to the cycle track.

dukedalton wrote:

2. Having crossed the bridge I then came into a line of traffic. It transpired that the reason there was a line of traffic was that there were two other cyclists cycling abreast of each other. Now, of course they're entitled to use the road, but on a narrow county road such as this, cycling in this way clearly increases the risk of an accident.

Can you please explain and point to Law where this two abreast cycling is illegal?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a29
Driving two abreast
[29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

dukedalton wrote:

My question is this:

If I drive recklessly and am caught, I am liable to be prosecuted. If a cyclist behaves in a reckless manner, is there any punishment?

Yes, they can have their driving license endorse and can be fine under the various Road traffic act. The main problem is lack of enforcement and lack of knowledge of Road traffic Laws and obligations and duties by cyclists, Pedestrians and drivers of self propelled vehicles which includes you.

Throughout the whole Traffic Act of 1964, it considers a cyclist as a driver and when exempting cyclist it mention after driver (other than a pedal cyclist)

Soon enough cyclists will face on the spot fines if caught breaking red lights or caught riding on footpaths or any other road safety laws.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclists-facing-onthespot-50-fines-for-riding-on-footpaths-29429494.html

As a driver of a mechanical propelled vehicle I learn the rules of the road. It far easier than the trawling through the law books.
http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Safe-Driving1/Rules-of-the-Road/
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

It is obvious that you did not know rules of the road, along with the cyclists you claim to be breaking Road traffic Laws. It is a 264 page document. The last few ones are blank so do not worry about those ones.
There is also and index pages at the very end to help in finding things.

Please Read the Introduction page 8

Rules of the Road Booklet wrote:

Page 9
To guide you when on the road, there are a number of skills expected of road users, in particular drivers: the ability to act responsibly, the ability to foresee and react to hazards, good concentration and a good level of driving expertise.

As a road user, you are also expected to have a positive and considerate attitude to each other, and in particular to vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, children, people with disabilities and older people.

In the interest of road safety, you need to be aware of the importance of gaining a good knowledge of this book and putting that knowledge to good practice.

Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

Comments