Bikers Pulled

Dan_B

Cops seem'd to be pulling bikers everywhere this morning around the city center.
Anyone here pulled or know what it was all about?

uberwolf

I saw that! I presumed it was because the chap I saw wasn't wearing a full face helmet. But then noticed there were 2 others pulled up as well waiting there turn

Gillo

Coppers pulling bikers..

Sorry but it's very tempting to make an immature joke.

They are more than likely doing one of their traffic blitz's, either that or near teh end of teh month and targets have to be met, and all will be fine in a few days
.

ChipZilla

Saw cops in Cork with a string of bikers pulled over the other day. Looked like they were checking the cans on a couple of them, but I've never known them to bother with stuff like that before...

AidoX

Wonder that its all about, maybe the are clamping down on bikes in bus lanes which will be a pitty.

davej

I too saw a number of bikers/mopeders pulled up this morning on the N11 near Donnybrook.

Perhaps it is a bus lane thing?

davej

iMax

Saw a bunch of them pulled in fairview this morning, all from the bus lane (which is only right). The Garda wearing the leathers with a cap just had an air of the blue oyster bar about him...

BUMP!

Saw a bunch of them pulled in fairview this morning, all from the bus lane (which is only right).

Why? Its not like they're holding anyone up. Leave em off...

Dan_B

That's more or less what I thought, Pitty!

tk123

They were just asking to see tax disc and licence.;)

Sleipnir

Originally posted by BUMP!
Why? Its not like they're holding anyone up. Leave em off...

Si I can do it in a car if the bus lane is empty then? Cool.

Dan_B

It's usually people in cars that have a problem with bikes in bus lanes.
Just green eye'd monsters.
Bikes don't congest bus lanes like cars would if they used them.
Cops used to turn a blind eye to this, I have often driven past them in the bus lane and was not stopped......

Sleipnir

Actually, I'm all for allowing bikes in the bus lane; do it today Dublin City Council.
Really, I think it's a stupid law.
It's the bastards in cars who use it that annoy the bejeesus out of me.

But, bikes are not allowed in the bus lanes by law, unfortunately, so if you can break the law "because it's alright, really." then so can I.

tk123

Ahh the bus lane!! I can't help singing "Life in the bus laaaaaaaaane"(sung to the tune of Life in the fast lane) when i'm driving in one!! Ahhhhhhhh

AidoX

MAG are pushing for bikers to use bus lanes same as it is out in Oz.

The whole idea is begin tested up north at the moment for 4 months (or something like that). I read that on MAG Ireland.

I drive a car and ride a bike (not at the same time), bike is much better for getting around the city, to work etc

My only pet hate about this country is road tax!! its a rip of roads a ****e. Should be more like the UK tax system agian dont know specifics off hand but its cheaper

Luckly they dont class bikes by engine cc, ****e shouldnt have said that in case they are watching!!

iMax

Originally posted by BUMP!
Why? Its not like they're holding anyone up. Leave em off...

Because they're called bus lanes... for buses, they're not called bus and bike lanes

tk123

Originally posted by iMax
Because they're called bus lanes... for buses, they're not called bus and bike lanes

Well they're not called Bus+Taxi+Bicycle lanes and taxis and bicycles can use them!!

Dan_B

Cyclists are allowed to use them!!!
Should they be called buy and cyclist lanes?
Then they would fit in to your perfect world:D

Dan_B

damn, beat me to it!
Gotta learn how to type.

tk123

Aww sorry Dan...

RicardoSmith

Not allowing bikes in bus lanes is just plain stupid. IT would be safer for the motorbikes, and it wouldn't hold up traffic. I would also reduce bikers weaving through traffic and passing you on both sides. I wonder would it cause accidents with cyclists though. Somehow I doubt it.

Not all rules make sense. Just like 24 hr bus lanes on a route that doesn't have buses 24hr

Dan_B

Here here!

iMax

Originally posted by tk123
Well they're not called Bus+Taxi+Bicycle lanes and taxis and bicycles can use them!!

But legislation provided for public service vehicles (Buses & Taxis) to use them & bicycles as a matter of safety...

Legislation didn't allow for motorbikes to use them, therefore bikers are breaking the laws by doing so.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Not allowing bikes in bus lanes is just plain stupid. IT would be safer for the motorbikes, and it wouldn't hold up traffic. I would also reduce bikers weaving through traffic and passing you on both sides. I wonder would it cause accidents with cyclists though. Somehow I doubt it.

By bikers weaving through traffic & passing on both sides (both illegal BTW), I somehow doubt bikers are primarily concerned with safety...

krinDar

Originally posted by iMax

By bikers weaving through traffic & passing on both sides (both illegal BTW), I somehow doubt bikers are primarily concerned with safety...

<sarcasm> Wow, you mean, if you are on a motorcycle you are never allowed overtake someone ? </sarcasm>

The Rules of the Road documents the occasions on which you can pass vehicles on both sides. This does not become invalid for any reason.

That said if it is done in a dangerous manner you could be prosecuted for careless/dangerous driving.

As in almost everything else, there are all sorts of motorcyclists; good, bad, stupid, dangerous etc.
The problem is the bad ones stick in your mind more.

echomadman

I somehow doubt bikers are primarily concerned with safety...

?
As the most vulnerable road users we tend to be more safety conscious than most car drivers.
I think too much time in traffic jams watching bikes filter past has soured you iMax.

seamus

Originally posted by iMax
Legislation didn't allow for motorbikes to use them, therefore bikers are breaking the laws by doing so.

Legislation did allow for bikers to use them, but only when stated. The bus lane down Dawson (?) Street being the good example. Motorcyclists are allowed turn left onto college green along with the taxis, buses and cyclists.

By bikers weaving through traffic & passing on both sides (both illegal BTW), I somehow doubt bikers are primarily concerned with safety... [/B]

Because all bikers weave and overtake on the left. :rolleyes: A lot do, and give a bad name to the rest of us.
Known as filtering, overtaking on the right and driving between traffic lanes is both legal and perfectly safe when practiced sensibly.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by iMax
But legislation provided for public service vehicles (Buses & Taxis) to use them & bicycles as a matter of safety...

Legislation didn't allow for motorbikes to use them, therefore bikers are breaking the laws by doing so.




By bikers weaving through traffic & passing on both sides (both illegal BTW), I somehow doubt bikers are primarily concerned with safety...

Personally anything that reduces, the odds of me hitting one I'm all for.

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by iMax
By bikers weaving through traffic & passing on both sides (both illegal BTW), I somehow doubt bikers are primarily concerned with safety...

When knocked down by a motorist, what is the first thing said motorist will say to the biker?
"Sorry, I didn't see you"

Most motorbike related incidents, are usually caused by a car driver not looking around them properly and subsequently pulling left or right.
Bikes would be better off being legally allowed in the bus lanes and it is stupid of our legislators not to allow this.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by kbannon
When knocked down by a motorist, what is the first thing said motorist will say to the biker?
"Sorry, I didn't see you"

Most motorbike related incidents, are usually caused by a car driver not looking around them properly and subsequently pulling left or right.
Bikes would be better off being legally allowed in the bus lanes and it is stupid of our legislators not to allow this.

Well that might be true its impossible to watch 360 around a car all at the same time. So if you have to look both sides of the car because bikes and cyclists are passing you both sides, in the split second it take to lok one side and the other, a bike can be on top of you. Thats not making an excuse, thats just the reality of it.

ChipZilla

What, like it's a car driver's fault when someone's riding between two lanes of traffic in their blind spot?

seamus

Originally posted by ChipZilla
What, like it's a car driver's fault when someone's riding between two lanes of traffic in their blind spot?

Legally, yes.
Although it's never black and white. Both parties in any crash can learn a lesson to avoid it happening again, regardless of who's to blame.

Bikers only legally have to follow the same safety rules as other vehicles, but they really do have a duty to heir own safety to ensure that they avoid things like driving in blind spots, sudden overtaking, as well as maintaining observation for motorists who just aren't watching.

Well that might be true its impossible to watch 360 around a car all at the same time. So if you have to look both sides of the car because bikes and cyclists are passing you both sides, in the split second it take to lok one side and the other, a bike can be on top of you. Thats not making an excuse, thats just the reality of it.

Common sense would dictate that you look in the mirror on the side that you're turning to last, so that your information is as fresh as possible.
So for a left turn, look in your left side mirror, indicate, rear-view mirror, right side mirror, left side mirror, look over your left shoulder, and go. Shouldn't take more then 2-3 seconds after indicating. There should be no more than half a second between looking in your left mirror and turning. In the looking over your shoulder and then moving, should be close to instantaneous, but prepared to not go if there's something there. If you don't go, you return to the step after you indicate.

Reverse for right-hand turn.

RicardoSmith

Thats great except when a couple of bikers pulls out a line of traffic behind, and one goes left and the other right you've got about 2-3 sec to react.

Regardless. Theres always situations where you just can't see a biker, and its not the drivers fault.

seamus

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Thats great except when a couple of bikers pulls out a line of traffic behind, and one goes left and the other right you've got about 2-3 sec to react.

Then you stay where you are, and let them pass you.

Regardless. Theres always situations where you just can't see a biker, and its not the drivers fault.

That's a load of crap. "I couldn't see him" is never an excuse. You have a 360° visiblity, if you move your head about.

ChipZilla

It's legally a car driver's fault when someone's riding between two lanes of traffic in their blind spot? What a load of bollocks. Is that in the rules of the road anywhere? Maybe it's in the same chapter as the bit about using the white line as a third lane if you're on a bike? Maybe if more bikers didn't treat the white line like a third lane they wouldn't get swiped by cars. How often would you say car drivers sideswipe other cars, as compared to bikes? And what do you think the reason for that might be?

Short of rolling down your window and sticking your head out to look behind, you're not going to see some asshole riding off your corner. If a biker is too stupid to realise he's in someone's blind spot when riding between lanes, he's a deserving Darwin Award candidate IMHO.

Anyway who cares? At the end of the day, in an accident the car will always come out on top. Literally.

ChipZilla

Originally posted by seamus
Then you stay where you are, and let them pass you.
That's a load of crap. "I couldn't see him" is never an excuse. You have a 360° visiblity, if you move your head about.

Oh you are so full of sh*t.

Explain to me how a person's head can move through 360&deg.

And we won't even mention blind spots.

Unless your name is Action Man it can't be done.

Enough with the trolling.

seamus

Originally posted by ChipZilla
It's legally a car driver's fault when someone's riding between two lanes of traffic in their blind spot? What a load of bollocks. Is that in the rules of the road anywhere?

The rules of the road says itself it's not to be treated as an interpretation of the law. Basically, when you change your road position, it's your responsibility to ensure that there are no vehicles occupying the roadspace you wish to enter or wish to cross. This is irrespective of the other vehicles being in a lane or not. So for all intents and purposes, when traffic is travelling in the same direction, it's the vehicle who "hits" the other vehicle that's normally at fault. So even if the biker is in your blind spot, you're "hitting" him because he didn't change his road position. Just like the car who runs into the back of another, or the car who pulls out right in front of another. It does sound unfair, but it's why you have to be vigilant.

milltown

As an ex and hopefully future biker I always felt that any biker who passes an indicating car without excercising extreme caution deserves to end up on his arse. Conversely, a driver who either doesn't look over his shoulder as well as in his mirrors, or just swipes the indicator with his pinky AS he is making the manouvre deserves to have his wing mirrors kicked off by any biker passing him. And to have a mother and father of a claim lodged against him.

The one thing that has kept me safe on two wheels and four is the cetain knowledge that most road users are fools and should be expected to do the most dangerous things at all times. If you can't see them looking at you then they haven't seen you (even then you get the odd dick like iMax [probably] who will see you coming and try to close the gap you are aiming for).

Back on topic, a bit, Bus lanes should be opened to bikers. It's a lot easier for a bike to negotiate a slow moving cyclist or stopped bus than it is for a taxi.

And filtering through slow moving or stopped traffic is perfectly legal. Hell I've even got the wife in the habit of leaving room on one side or the other for bikes to get past.

seamus

Originally posted by ChipZilla
Oh you are so full of sh*t.

Explain to me how a person's head can move through 360&deg.

And we won't even mention blind spots.

Unless your name is Action Man it can't be done.

Enough with the trolling.

Blind spots are parts of your vision obscured by your own vehicle. In cae you have forgotten, checking your blinds spots by moving your head is one of the crucial parts of any manouver.
I didn't say a person's head can move through 360°. You have two side mirrors, a rear view mirror, and a rotatable neck. You should be able to move your head to see the blind spots not visible in the side mirrors, and out of the scope of the rear-view mirror. If you can't, you should do something about it.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by seamus
Legally, yes.
Although it's never black and white. Both parties in any crash can learn a lesson to avoid it happening again, regardless of who's to blame.

Bikers only legally have to follow the same safety rules as other vehicles, but they really do have a duty to heir own safety to ensure that they avoid things like driving in blind spots, sudden overtaking, as well as maintaining observation for motorists who just aren't watching.

Common sense would dictate that you look in the mirror on the side that you're turning to last, so that your information is as fresh as possible.
So for a left turn, look in your left side mirror, indicate, rear-view mirror, right side mirror, left side mirror, look over your left shoulder, and go. Shouldn't take more then 2-3 seconds after indicating. There should be no more than half a second between looking in your left mirror and turning. In the looking over your shoulder and then moving, should be close to instantaneous, but prepared to not go if there's something there. If you don't go, you return to the step after you indicate.

Reverse for right-hand turn.

I wish I could apply maths as I'm driving.

ChipZilla

And where does the biker toddling along on the white line between the two lanes stand legally? Nowhere maybe? You're either in one lane or the other. If someone on a bike is attempting an overtake he should be in the outside lane, not between two.

Anyway, you're supposed to allow a safe distance between you and the vehicle in front of you to allow people to move into your lane etc., aren't you? If you're in someone's blind spot, surely you're not a safe distance behind them?

spockety

Originally posted by ChipZilla
What, like it's a car driver's fault when someone's riding between two lanes of traffic in their blind spot?

There's no such thing as a blind spot, there are only places you haven't bothered looking.

I'm a biker, but I'm a car driver as well, and I can safely say that car drivers in general are not concerned with doing much observation apart from their mirrors. I'm not saying it's their fault, they're just not properly trained, it's symptomatic of the state of driving license regulations in this country.

Car drivers need to be taught how to move their heads and their eyes, and exactly where to look, and when to look, when performing a deviation.

seamus

Originally posted by ChipZilla
And where does the biker toddling along on the white line between the two lanes stand legally? Nowhere maybe? You're either in one lane or the other. If someone on a bike is attempting an overtake he should be in the outside lane, not between two.

Traffic lanes travelling the same way are not strictly a legal entity, but they are used for defining legal definitions of undertaking/overtaking. By this I mean that because the white line is broken, you can piss all over it. Undertaking is not specifically illegal, but you can be done for dangerous driving if you undertake. Similarly, driving in the overtaking lane is not strictly illegal, but one can be done for careless or dangerous driving by hogging it.
Likewise, a car (or bike) which drives right on the white line between two lanes is not doing anything specifically illegal, but it can be defined as dangerous driving.

Anyway, you're supposed to allow a safe distance between you and the vehicle in front of you to allow people to move into your lane etc., aren't you? If you're in someone's blind spot, surely you're not a safe distance behind them?

Wrong. You're supposed to allow a safe distance between you and the vehicle in front to ensure you have enough space to brake for the speed, road conditions and condition of your vehicle. You are not required to leave room just in case someone wishes to move in front of you. The responsibility is on the person changing lane to ensure there is enough room for them to move in without obstructing other traffic or putting them in danger. However, once again, if a Garda so desired, he could do a car for dangerous or careless driving if the person refused to give room to car which has indicated a desire move in front of him.

Borzoi

Originally posted by ChipZilla
Oh you are so full of ****

Ok, see you in a week Chipzilla. You may need to PM mike65 or me to remind us to unban you.

Otherwise I'm locking this thread because:
1) It's gone of topic
2) It turned personal
3) It's just the same ol' biker vs car bollixology. I mean......

Why can't we all just get along?


doh...timing

RicardoSmith

No such things as blind spots?

In the real world there are blind spots, they may only exist of a couple of secs but that enough for someone to miss something in their scan and an accident to happen. You can't look in every direction every sec you are driving. Its physically impossible. You can't look left and right at the same time. You can't look forwards and backwards at the same time. You can't look in a mirror and not in a mirror at the same time. Theres gaps all around for seconds at a time.

You can be sat at junction and a biker can be coming towards you at exactly the right angle to be hidden by the A-Pillar or the C Pillar. You just won't see him.