Are you guilty ?

HJ Simpson

Metrobest wrote:

Personally I wouldn't break a red light but I understand why some cyclists do. At certain junctions pedstrians get a green but cars get a red; for ten seconds or so there is no traffic coming in the cyclist's path, so I can see why one would be tempted...By going a few seconds' earlier than the cars, one can get into a better lane position (for example: the bridge at Wood Quay turning right onto the North Quays). Stop blaming cyclists: blame the woefully-inadequate provisions on our roads for cyclists.

All traffic lights should be fitted out with seperate "bicycle" lights; the norm in Holland. And the bicycle light at junction Bull Alley Street/Bride Street has GOT to be fixed. It shows green when it should be red, and vice versa!

Bullsh1t!!! Sorry but if I as a cyclist stop at a red light as I always doand some twat cycles past me through it this is never acceptable. If you cant get into the right lane you shouldnt be cycling into town. If you cant position yourself in the right part of the road to end up in the appropriate place for where you want to proceed to you dont belong on the road.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

but non-compliance is much higher in cyclists and pedestrians than other road users.

Please quote your source or provide a link to the relevant official statistics.

seamus wrote:

They don't have a dedicated system, so deal with it.

Everyone must deal with this and not just cyclists, this means that motorists must not only obey the laws but must drive with consideration for others.

It would be helpful towards cyclists if drivers would only use fog-lamps when it is foggy, choose brightly coloured contrasting colours for their vehicles & switch on their lights whilst parked on the street at night. Better still, do not park on the street as this adversely affects cyclist safety.

C:\

Metrobest

jetsonx wrote:

I cannot believe there is massive campaign against smoking...yes it is harmful and can kill people - YET cycling without a light well that can only kill you INSTANTANEOUSLY ... - why is there not a campaign about this? Where are all the health and safety folks when it comes to this issue?

One poster mentioned how in one German city (Munich) there are spotchecks on the cycle lanes there for cyclists without a light...if any of our force are reading this please take note.

N S -> guy with black jeans and jacket cycling and no lights - smart guy...

You're off your rocker comparing cycling to smoking. One (smoking) ruins your health; the other (cycling) keeps you fit.

Any "campaign" should involve telling motorists to watch out for cyclists, huge fines on cars that park in cycle lanes, seperate traffic lights for bikes and kerbed-off cycle lanes.

jetsonx

"A campaign for motorists to watch out for cyclists"

How broad would your little campaign be..motorists are already being
bombarded with messages about 1) drink and driving 2) speeding
and you want to add cyclists to this list do you ? Studies have shown
that when you bombard a public ( in this case motorists) with too many messages they just begin to ignore them. Thus, this would be ineffectual.

huge fines on cars that park in cycle lanes, seperate traffic lights for bikes and kerbed-off cycle lanes.

Your second suggestion is just risible...where the f@ck do you think we are living Amsterdam ? We have one of the lowest km of cycles lanes of any city in Europe. Yet you want to tackle the issue by putting traffic lights on our pathic excuses of cycle lanes that we have...this sort of answer just beggars belief.

My analogy with cyclist safety and smoking is quite apt. Both are public health issues. Look at the statistics. Every time a cyclist sets off on a bike there is risk of a serious fatality - you know small things like people's skulls hitting off concrete pavements which will - like a smoking lead to a premature demise.

Our European neighbours who more savvy in these affairs that the Irish - realize that your proposed "Motorists Watch Out for Cyclists" or "Motorists - fines for parking on cycle lanes" will not work in the long term. Its about
1) cyclist infrastructure and 2) cyclist education thus the need for a campaign.

cyclopath2001

jetsonx wrote:

Its about
1) cyclist infrastructure and 2) cyclist education thus the need for a campaign.

And motorists have no role to play?

I don't think so.

How many accidents involving death or serious injury to cyclists are solely the fault of cyclists?

seamus

Neil_Sedaka wrote:

After locking up my wheels, waking my sleeping child and causing me near heart failure, the cnut gives me the finger and whilst still shaking his head cycles through the red light on Dartry road, only to be blown away by some other motorist coming form the opposite direction!!!!!

Karma.

Metrobest

jetsonx wrote:

How broad would your little campaign be..motorists are already being
bombarded with messages about 1) drink and driving 2) speeding
and you want to add cyclists to this list do you ? Studies have shown
that when you bombard a public ( in this case motorists) with too many messages they just begin to ignore them. Thus, this would be ineffectual.

Your second suggestion is just risible...where the f@ck do you think we are living Amsterdam ? We have one of the lowest km of cycles lanes of any city in Europe. Yet you want to tackle the issue by putting traffic lights on our pathic excuses of cycle lanes that we have...this sort of answer just beggars belief.

My analogy with cyclist safety and smoking is quite apt. Both are public health issues. Look at the statistics. Every time a cyclist sets off on a bike there is risk of a serious fatality - you know small things like people's skulls hitting off concrete pavements which will - like a smoking lead to a premature demise.

Our European neighbours who more savvy in these affairs that the Irish - realize that your proposed "Motorists Watch Out for Cyclists" or "Motorists - fines for parking on cycle lanes" will not work in the long term. Its about
1) cyclist infrastructure and 2) cyclist education thus the need for a campaign.

If we're looking a cyclists' issues let's not look at our "European neighbours" - by which I assume you mean England - but let's look at Holland where bikes outnumber cars. The climate is practically the same as Ireland's, it's not that much flatter in most places and cities Amsterdam and Dublin are of similar size.

The lessons to be learnt are:
* Proper, stand-alone cycle lanes EVERYWHERE, not just tiny bits of red chalk that cuts out randomly when the road is narrow
* Smaller "mini-sized, bike-only" traffic lights at junctions
* Don't "punish" cyclists; punish drivers

Funny how you don't see motorists in Holland wandering around internet forums giving out about cyclists. It's simply a matter of puttingin place a bikes-and-cars-are-equals culture, instead of the belief, widely held by Dublin drivers, that cyclists are the vermin of the roadways.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

Karma.

Hi seamus, ready to back up your assertions with facts?

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Hi seamus, ready to back up your assertions with facts?

I'm not going to. I didn't think I needed to end every sentence with "in my experience", perhaps I should :rolleyes:. That statement's been sitting there 3 weeks without being challenged. I don't need to qualify my opinion.
I'm not interested in a tit-for-tat debate. They're no longer constructive.

Enduro

My analogy with cyclist safety and smoking is quite apt. Both are public health issues. Look at the statistics. Every time a cyclist sets off on a bike there is risk of a serious fatality - you know small things like people's skulls hitting off concrete pavements which will - like a smoking lead to a premature demise

That is pretty much the opposite of reality. Statistically, cyclists live longer. Despite all the hazards of cycling (Mainly motorists), the exercise is so benificial that any cyclist who is not mown down by a car is far less likely to die of heart attacks etc. So in reality any campaigns should be to encourage people to cycle, and to protect them from as much as possible from dangerous drivers (law enforcement would be the best way to achieve this).

Victor

jetsonx wrote:

I cannot believe there is massive campaign against smoking...yes it is harmful and can kill people - YET cycling without a light well that can only kill you INSTANTANEOUSLY ...

Smoking causes something like 7,000 premature deaths per year in Ireland, compared to 18 cyclists killed in 2002.

Enduro wrote:

Despite all the hazards of cycling

Cycling is a safe activity, much safer than motoring.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

I'm not going to. I didn't think I needed to end every sentence with "in my experience", perhaps I should :rolleyes:. That statement's been sitting there 3 weeks without being challenged. I don't need to qualify my opinion.
I'm not interested in a tit-for-tat debate. They're no longer constructive.

Yes, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

According to Victor, 98% of motorists break the speed limit. If we add to that the many other life-threatening offences commited by motorits, I think that we can easily say that 100% of motorists do not comply with the law.

Your opinion is nonsense unless you are prepared to defend it.

mackerski

Metrobest wrote:

* Don't "punish" cyclists; punish drivers

How about a novel approach? "Punish" "wrongdoers".

Dermot

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Yes, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

According to Victor, 98% of motorists break the speed limit. If we add to that the many other life-threatening offences commited by motorits, I think that we can easily say that 100% of motorists do not comply with the law.

Your opinion is nonsense unless you are prepared to defend it.

I don't consider minor speed infringements to be serious traffic offences. I do consider breaking red lights, failing to look at junctions, and cycling the wrong way up one-way roads to be serious traffic offences.

We can easily say 100% of road users in general do not comply with the law. In my experience, I witness more incidences of serious traffic offences per mile by cyclists than by motorists.

Chalk

where i live there is a separate cycle track, walled off from the road
the majority of cyclists use the track,
invariably the ones who dont have no lights, reflectors or common sense.
ive had a cyclist coming at me in the middle of the road, filtering a la motorcycle, with no lights or nothing,
luckily the traffic was heavy and i was filtering slowly due to the rain and darkness, otherwise it would not have been so nice.


as a side note i generally think them blinky lights to more to hinder than help cyclists.
most of my looking around is done in the form of quick glances
a 2mm light flashig on and off has a better chance of confusing me as to what it is - reflection off a car/ rain drop / etc.
im not saying i dont pay enough attention to noctice cyclists but in traffic everything you can do be more visible helps.
btw ive never seen one of them led lights that doesnt have at least 3 leds and the option to switch between flashing and solid.

Kingsize

The plain fact of the matter is that even if cyclists wore lights all over themselves they would still be killed by bad drivers.Admitedly having no lights is reckless & indeed is breaking the law but thats no excuse .
I would say the majority of accidents involving cyclists happen in daylight & i was once reliably informed by a garda that 90% of the time the driver is at fault.
How many drivers are going around on provisional licences unnacompanied & unchallenged? i.e. breaking the law
most carnage on the roads involve motor vehicles crashing into each other so surely this has nothing to do with visibility but rather drivers taking their "eye off the ball "
so for instance if a car can crash into a truck or a bus what chance would a law abiding cyclist have?
& At the end of the day a bad cyclist is less of a threat to life than a bad motorist.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

I don't consider minor speed infringements to be serious traffic offences.

I would have to disagree.

There is no such thing as a 'minor speed infringement'. All speed infringements are serious.

At 30mph a pedestrian has a 55% chance of surviving being struck by a car. By 40 mph, the chances are just 15%. ( ‘Killing Speed and Saving Lives’, U.K. Department of Transport (1997)).

To me, a serious offence is one that increases the risk of injury to others.

Increased speed is not only dangerous but it is also anti-social as it deprives the elderly of opportunities to cross & increases road noise.

To me, a minor offence would be tootling your horn when you see someone you know walking down the street or having the wrong size letters on your number plate.

If we accept that 100% of motorists break the law, then it is impossible to say that cyclists or pedestrians break the law more often than motorists.


C:\

Chalk

cyclopath2001 wrote:

If we accept that 100% of motorists break the law, then it is impossible to say that cyclists or pedestrians break the law more often than motorists.

just want to pick up on what your saying there, even if 100% of motorists do break the law, [ im not sure about this figure] and 100% of cyclists break the law
,
could a cyclist not break the law 10-15 times per journey, runs a few red lights, mounts the kerb a few times, turns without indicating, no lights etc,
then compare to a motorist who crosses the speed limit once or twice in his daily commute, now
who has broken the law more times?

100% , in this case , does not = 100%

Metrobest

Chalk wrote:

just want to pick up on what your saying there, even if 100% of motorists do break the law, [ im not sure about this figure] and 100% of cyclists break the law
,
could a cyclist not break the law 10-15 times per journey, runs a few red lights, mounts the kerb a few times, turns without indicating, no lights etc,
then compare to a motorist who crosses the speed limit once or twice in his daily commute, now
who has broken the law more times?

100% , in this case , does not = 100%

Your mentality is just so shocking. You have obviously never been on a bike in Dublin. If you had, you might understand why the roads are so dangerous to cycle on. And why? Because of the most awful driving. Cyclists don't kill drivers; drivers kill cyclists. So who's the culprit? Drivers.

sliabh

Metrobest wrote:

Cyclists don't kill drivers; drivers kill cyclists. So who's the culprit? Drivers.

Your position on this has already been made clear metrobest, you don't feel cyclists are responsible for any of their actions.

They have been absolved of the need to use lights at night (in addition to the fact you think they look silly), observe traffic lights, or indeed take much account of the rules of the road because you believe that all accidents are the fault of motorists.

Well as a cyclist and a motorist I can tell you that this is cobblers. A lot of cyclists do get killed and injured from motorists negligence, but the deliberate actions of cyclists to choose to disregard basic safety concerns (such as personal lights, stop signs etc) is also getting cyclists killed and injured. It may be a car that run them over, but they wouldn't have been in front of the bonnet and under the wheels if they obeyed the rules of the road that applied to them as well.

cyclopath2001

Chalk wrote:

could a cyclist not break the law 10-15 times per journey, runs a few red lights, mounts the kerb a few times, turns without indicating, no lights etc, then compare to a motorist who crosses the speed limit once or twice in his daily commute, now who has broken the law more times?
100% , in this case , does not = 100%

You've just highlighted the stupidity of seamus's assertion.

If a cyclist has no bell on his/her bike and does not indicate while making a turn, is this two offences? If a motorist travels at 40mph for 5 miles in a 30mph zone, is this just one offence?

Which road-user is the most dangerous to others?

cyclopath2001

sliabh wrote:

A lot of cyclists do get killed and injured from motorists negligence, but the deliberate actions of cyclists to choose to disregard basic safety concerns ....is also getting cyclists killed and injured.

Both statements are true, but in how many accidents are the cyclists negligent and in how many the motorist (or both)?

Feel free to quote official statistics.

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Both statements are true, but in how many accidents are the cyclists negligent and in how many the motorist (or both)?

Feel free to quote official statistics.

I don't know. But my point rather is that Metorbest doesn't seem to accept that there is a set of circumstances where a cyclist ever could be at fault if they are struck by a car, and I think this is nonsense.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I would have to disagree.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree

If we accept that 100% of motorists break the law, then it is impossible to say that cyclists or pedestrians break the law more often than motorists.

Chalk has taken this one nicely.

Metrobest

sliabh wrote:

They have been absolved of the need to use lights at night (in addition to the fact you think they look silly), observe traffic lights, or indeed take much account of the rules of the road because you believe that all accidents are the fault of motorists.

the deliberate actions of cyclists to choose to disregard basic safety concerns (such as personal lights, stop signs etc) is also getting cyclists killed and injured. It may be a car that run them over, but they wouldn't have been in front of the bonnet and under the wheels if they obeyed the rules of the road that applied to them as well.

Well when I see people dressed up like a tacky christmas tree, lights flashing and reflector-jacket twinkling I do think that's silly. Because at the end of the day, no matter how visible you are, all it takes is one irresponsible driver to knock you down. I would have no problem with the government giving out free "safety gear" if is found that this reduces cyclist road deaths (last year there were 18, I believe) For me, this is the bottom line: the biggest danger on the road for a cyclist is bad drivers, and I think the road death statistics bear this out.

One contributer here said he "glances around" when he's driving. That's not good enough. If you're in charge of a WMD (car) then you've gotta take that responsibility seriously. That said, obviously if a cyclist recklessly veers into the path of a car that's driving sensibly, you would have to exonerate the driver from responsibility.

Neil_Sedaka

Metrobest wrote:

I would have no problem with the government giving out free "safety gear" if is found that this reduces cyclist road deaths.

I would have no problem with the government giving me free tyres, brake pads, light bulbs etc. if is found that this reduces cyclist road deaths

HJ Simpson

Hi,
Off work yesterday couldnt respond. Now here the thing as a cyclist/commuter I stop at lights and see other cyclist go straight through them. I come in through Kimmage/Harrolds cross. Now if I run the red light at the junction at Harold Cross park chances are it wont effect any motorist. The problem is if I run it and there is a cyclist comming from Terenure as I push them into the traffic lane. Running red lights is just plain stupid. I cant believe any cyclist on here thinks its o.k. However the reason so many cyclist do this is because essentially the Gaurds dont care. I have seen motorcycle garda sitting on the other side of a set of lights as cyclist break them and do nothing. I have also seen motorist go straight though light as they go red. There needs to be a dedicated traffic core to deal with this problem.
HJS

Pinkchick03

When driving onto a roundabout today I nearly knocked down a cyclist today cos he had no lights and had no reflective gear - and if I had have knocked him down it would have been my fault - which isn't exactly fair cos its a bit of give and take or whatever that saying is! So cyclists please make yourselves seen!!

funkyniff

for over two years i had been cycling to work..(i have lights),
but recently due to my new skill of driving i use the car.(except on good day where the weather is good and the car traffic is bad).it is only now i realize how hard cyclists are to see in the dark..even with lights..i noticed that the ones that flash are better because you can see them in the distance and i know they are cyclists.
but also both the standered of driving and cyling is bad!! as a cyclist i have seen other cyclists ,cycling terriby, drivers...who i am sure are tring to kill me...(people in my work go on about cyclist cycling in the middle of the road and getting in there way and they cant get past..)but as a cyclist sometimes this is the only safe way..we have right of way...then as a driver i have also seen bad cyclists who just cycle up the road the wrong way ..

my batteries died on the way into work the other day and i wouldnt cycle home. because i felt my safty was in danger..i now know as a driver i wouldnt see me so how can other driver..
i also need to get better reflector clothing...
(in the summer i will be cyling more)..
i also have to cycle along the east wall road...with lorrys hanging over me..very scary for a cyclist

Pinkchick03

funkyniff wrote:

i also have to cycle along the east wall road...with lorrys hanging over me..very scary for a cyclist

Scary - fair play to you cycling there!
Actually fair play to anyone cycling it is very dangerous with all the reckless drivers out their!